August 20, 2019, 06:22:31 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Think so?  (Read 1607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM
Read 1607 times
Offline

Marchesk


This is inspired by a Youtube comment on the incident from a month ago. It's the best version of the avalanche theory I've heard, and it sounds rather convincing.

To paraphrase, the commenter claims that Russian alpinists, rangers and scientists in the 90s reopened the case, travelled to the location, and studied it for a long time. They came to the conclusion that when the snow is exposed to high winds cold enough temperatures, which may have been the case that day/night, the top layer freezes into a rigid crust that came loose a little farther up the mountain, slid down and hit the tent, causing the injuries to three of the bodies found in the ravine, while blocking the entrance of the tent. So the rest of them cut their way out of the tent and removed the injured.

Fearing another such incident, they decided to head back down the mountain from where they thought they had come from that day to fetch the supplies they had left there. Abandoning the tent makes sense in this scenario if you think the rest of your supplies are not that far away. It was only when the reached the tree line that they realized they went in the wrong direction, and did the best they could to survive. Tending to the injured would have delayed the attempt to return the tent and correct their mistake.

This makes the least assumptions (along with the stove theory) and relies on something known to be on the mountain, which would be the frozen snow. Of course it's still speculation as the search party and subsequent investigation apparently didn't find evidence to suggest this scenario. My question would be would such evidence dissipate in the middle of winter from wind or a change in temperature?

And if knowledgeable Russians in the 90s arrived at this theory, then why hasn't it stuck? We've had multiple books, videos and forum discussions suggesting lots of other theories since then.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2018, 02:11:02 PM by Marchesk »

October 26, 2018, 04:50:45 PM
Reply #1
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The avalanche theory appears to be wearing a bit thin. I think its becoming generally accepted that an avalanche was highly unlikely to have caused all the injuries even if an avalanche happened which is also highly unlikely.
DB

October 26, 2018, 06:45:34 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Marchesk


The avalanche theory appears to be wearing a bit thin.

I thought an avalanche had been ruled out, but this specific version, which might be better called by a related name, seems to be plausible, and it doesn't require speculating about additional elements not known to be present on the mountain that night.

One part of the particularly theory I related does make the assumption they wanted to backtrack to the previous campsite where they had setup a storage for food and clothing they didn't carry up the mountain. But I don't recall how far away it actually was.

October 27, 2018, 03:40:31 PM
Reply #3
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
 [[  slid down and hit the tent, causing the injuries to three of the bodies found in the ravine, while blocking the entrance of the tent. So the rest of them cut their way out of the tent and removed the injured. ]]  Highly unlikely. Virtually impossible, etc . The injuries to some of the Group were not caused by an avalanche of any description. Details about avalanche injuries that can occur to people have been dealt with in other Topic on this site. Any avalanche of such force to cause some of those severe injuries would also have been powerful enough to sweep the Tent away, etc.
DB

October 30, 2018, 12:04:16 PM
Reply #4
Offline

WAB


This is inspired by a Youtube comment on the incident from a month ago. It's the best version of the avalanche theory I've heard, and it sounds rather convincing.

I would like that you would give the reference to this comment. I have suspicion on the one who spoke it and that he spoke. However I want will be convinced that I am rights.

To paraphrase, the commenter claims that Russian alpinists, rangers and scientists in the 90s reopened the case, travelled to the location, and studied it for a long time.

It is a lie. Unique travellers who "and studied it for a long time " (с) there were we. It is I and Alexander Alekseenkov. But we have opposite opinion concerning possibility of movement of snow.

They came to the conclusion that when the snow is exposed to high winds cold enough temperatures, which may have been the case that day/night, the top layer freezes into a rigid crust that came loose a little farther up the mountain, slid down and hit the tent, causing the injuries to three of the bodies found in the ravine, while blocking the entrance of the tent. So the rest of them cut their way out of the tent and removed the injured.

This opinion is completely a fantasy because there conditions in the nature exist absolutely others.
Look, as prepared for Dyatlov group a platform for scarfs. It, certainly is analogue, but they did in the same way.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kkny3ix7wy3gZcQWJcnJ61HgFnYz_-VK/view?usp=sharing 

For example, so the structure of a cut of a layer of snow on depth of 70 сm (2,5 ft) looks:



(The length of a ski is equal 60 sm - 2 ft. It is a ski it is intended for children.)
Then we tried to jump on an edge these are walls. Any collapses except local (size as boot sole) it was not revealed.

Fearing another such incident,

And here it is a fantasy in degree 2 (erection in square function) or even 3 (erection in cubic function). lol2

they decided to head back down the mountain

Any signs that who that came back in Dyatlov group does not exist. There is a steady myth in almost 60 years. If you consider that it not so, I ask specify those signs which you prefer to see.

from where they thought they had come from that day to fetch the supplies they had left there. Abandoning the tent makes sense in this scenario if you think the rest of your supplies are not that far away. It was only when the reached the tree line that they realized they went in the wrong direction, and did the best they could to survive. Tending to the injured would have delayed the attempt to return the tent and correct their mistake.

These are light words which are no supported by nothing, except imagination.

This makes the least assumptions (along with the stove theory) and relies on something known to be on the mountain, which would be the frozen snow. Of course it's still speculation as the search party and subsequent investigation apparently didn't find evidence to suggest this scenario. My question would be would such evidence dissipate in the middle of winter from wind or a change in temperature?

Never happens so, what any traces or signs of traces have been destroyed completely. On all searches of similar searches Dyatlov group to searches we found at least insignificant traces. The question consists only volume as them to consider and classify. It is difficult to do it to people who have no such experience. Because it is necessary to be able to pay attention to some small details important and not to pay attention to some big details which are absolutely not important for research, but seem considerable.

And if knowledgeable Russians in the 90s arrived at this theory, then why hasn't it stuck? We've had multiple books, videos and forum discussions suggesting lots of other theories since then.

It has not got stuck because in practice it proved no be true nothing. Any of several hundred groups which went in this place, never saw even the slightest signs of a motion of snow. Without meaning avalanches, especially considerably.

October 30, 2018, 12:17:04 PM
Reply #5
Offline

WAB


--------------------------------
The avalanche theory appears to be wearing a bit thin.
==================
I thought an avalanche had been ruled out, but this specific version, which might be better called by a related name, seems to be plausible, and it doesn't require speculating about additional elements not known to be present on the mountain that night.

Marchesk, let's look at history of this hypothesis. The theory "avalanche" do`t "had been ruled out", instead of has been considered as the fact at that time. Till 90th years of the XX-th century, it at all did not assume absolutely.
In 1996 Moisey (Moses) Axelrod tried to present it as the assumption, considering as the reason of its occurrence rocket explosion above pass. However it is a typical example of the reference of one not proved phenomenon on another too not proved. It happens when the second not proved phenomenon try to prove the first, but not proved phenomenon also.
Availability of the rocket which have arrived on pass, it is fiction completely. It I can tell as the expert and professional in rockets design.
Further, in 2006 … 2010 other person - Evgenie Buyanov, has written the book in which he insists that the reason of this failure is the avalanche. However it is imagination as. Subsequently it changes the opinion that there was a local movement of a layer of snow. It too is imagination. Brawlers were not on this place in the winter and did not study snow and occurrence possibility even small shift of snow. We were engaged in it (together with Alexander Alekseenkov) winter 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. As a result I can firmly tell that on this place of a condition of a condition of snow in different year is that that about any (even the weak) cannot be spoken to a snow motion in general.
Therefore it is impossible speak about any plausibility of this theory as is.

One part of the particularly theory I related does make the assumption they wanted to backtrack to the previous campsite where they had setup a storage for food and clothing they didn't carry up the mountain. But I don't recall how far away it actually was.

It is absolutely improbable. That make it would be necessary to pass almost one mile across a wind direction very precisely maintaining a course in full darkness. And then it was necessary to go one more mile precisely maintaining a course in snow where to pass without use of skis it is impossible. There is a deep snow. From presence of established facts we can say that Dyatlov group left downhill and at the rate to wind direction. That is in a direction of the least resistance to movement. That completely corresponds to a principle of entropy of the made work. Or corresponds to natural law created by the nature.
That on what you give the reference this opinion of whom that of those who discussed this theme, but has not too deeply thought of this thought and does not know conditions well or enough.

October 30, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Marchesk


Thank you WAB for the detailed reply. Let me make sure I understand you. In summary,

You have been to the mountain in winter and have concluded that there is no evidence for snow slides there, which I believe is consistent with what Keith McCloskey also said when he visited the site in winter.

The hikers would not have backtracked to the previous campsite where they had built the shelter for items they didn't take with them up the mountain, because the wind and distance at night was too much effort, so they headed downhill from the wind to the nearest tree line.

Also, there wasn't evidence for a rocket test, just speculation?


October 31, 2018, 03:09:18 PM
Reply #7
Offline

WAB


Thank you WAB for the detailed reply. Let me make sure I understand you. In summary,

I will try to answer as much as possible in detail and precisely …

You have been to the mountain in winter and have concluded that there is no evidence for snow slides there, which I believe is consistent with what Keith McCloskey also said when he visited the site in winter.

Yes. I was in this place in the winter 4 times [2 times – in March (2 + 9 days), 1 time – in January (11 days), 1 time – in February (13 days)], 2 times in the summer for specification of a relief and mapgraphical work. Except that Shura (Alexander Alekseenkov) was there in November (6 days) for comparison of snow with what was in 1959. Now winters to be snow became warmer also drops out more. Especially it is difficult for understanding because the winter 1959 in this place was with very small quantity of snow.
Keith McCloskey was not in this place in the winter. He was in August, 2015 (4 or 5 days). There he (unfortunately) has damaged his foot and has returned earlier than expedition with which it there has ended works has come. It have sent on a car (cross-country vehicle) on which there extreme travellers come to it.

The hikers would not have backtracked to the previous campsite where they had built the shelter for items they didn't take with them up the mountain, because the wind and distance at night was too much effort, so they headed downhill from the wind to the nearest tree line.

First I should apologise for an error in the previous message. What to reach a warehouse it would be necessary to go (at the very beginning of this route) not «in a direction of wind lengthwise 1 mile», and «across a direction across wind lengthwise 1 mile».
In the rest you understand all correctly only it is necessary to add 2 more factors:
1. The Second part of a route (to a warehouse) they should go on deep snow where it is impossible to pass without presence of skis.
2. I consider, who they did not choose a movement direction because were in a stressful condition. On another it is impossible to explain that they:
Have left and did not take with itself without what could not survive (and they well understood it). All these things were at them nearby. Nothing prevented to take them in any circumstances.
Have cut tent. It was a unique place where they could survive at such weather. To cut tent meant to destroy such place completely. Or 90 %. No reason except mentality infringement could force to arrive them so. He “ stake one's al” the his lives. Blockages snow, a strong wind and another could not cause their runaway from tent. It is equivalent to if they have broken a window and have jumped out of the plane at the big height only because in salon light has gone out.

Also, there wasn't evidence for a rocket test, just speculation?

Exactly. I well know both the rocket equipment, and history of rocket structure.
1.At that time was not available rockets which could reach there from places where they have really been located. If who that considers that so was, he considers that it was for this purpose what to shoot on the population, instead of on the opponent. Rocket parts settled down near to borders, and a place where there was Dyatlov group is located in the centre of country and to the nearest border there were not less than 3 500 km (~ 2000 miles). Space rockets are excluded:
a) At that time in an orbit of the Earth there were 5 satellites: 4 American satellites (the first USA - Explorer-1, = weight of 5 kg - the companion or 11 pounds, and together with not separated fourth missile stage of 14 kg or 30 pounds; the second USA Vanguard I weight = 1,5 kg or 3,5 pounds; Explorer-3 weight = same equal as Explorer-1; Explorer-4 weight = 25,5 kg or 56 pounds) and one satellite of USSR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_3 - weight = 1370 kg or 3020 pounds. All companions were in a non-working condition when Dyatlov group was lost. Besides orbits of all American satellites have been inclined to 33 degrees (Explorer-4 orbit was 50 degrees), and the place of events is on 61 degree of Northern width.
b) Space launch there was not in during period when a travel of Dyatlov group. It was not anywhere in the world (in the USSR and in the USA).
c) On February, 02nd 1959 from base "Kapustin Jar" (Astrakhan region) has been made launch rocket R-5m type to will shift Kazakhstan. The actual length of flight of this rocket was equal 920 km (the maximum range is equal 1200 km, and to pass where there was Dyatlov group distance equally ~2000 km) and the flight direction was under 90 degrees to a direction on pass. During all flight behind it telemetering tracking has been spent. The place of falling of the rocket was quickly revealed and is investigated.
d) At that time were not closer than 2000 km other rocket base or places of their distribution.
It is necessary to notice that at that time there were many conversations about any rockets and it was a fashionable theme of conversations. It was time of the first companions and all raved rockets. Therefore here it is a lot of gamble on this theme (about rockets).

November 12, 2018, 11:32:30 PM
Reply #8
Offline

Marchesk


Well, Sergey Shkryabach thought so in his conclusion which Teddy posted in English. That a snow slab from a little ways above the tent slid down onto the tent. They had a brief amount of time while the tent slowed the snow from caving in, allowing them to exit. In the initial panic and powerful winds, they started heading downhill. Soon it became too late to turn around in the wind and locate the buried tent in the dark, so they continued to the tree line to try and start a fire and seek shelter.

It sounds well reasoned. I do have several of questions.

1. Why didn't the search team see evidence for this snow slide? Could enough snow have slid and blown off the tent during the 24 days to disguise what happened? If it was a slab of snow, did it break up or thaw out in slightly warmer weather?

2. Why did Igor, Zina and Rustem think that going back to the tent after reaching the cedar tree was worth trying for when they realized they couldn't turn around and go back and dig it out in those conditions a few meters away while on their descent? It makes no survival sense.

3. What about the flashlight left at the tent?


December 02, 2018, 09:44:22 AM
Reply #9
Offline

WAB


Well, Sergey Shkryabach thought so in his conclusion which Teddy posted in English. That a snow slab from a little ways above the tent slid down onto the tent. They had a brief amount of time while the tent slowed the snow from caving in, allowing them to exit. In the initial panic and powerful winds, they started heading downhill. Soon it became too late to turn around in the wind and locate the buried tent in the dark, so they continued to the tree line to try and start a fire and seek shelter.

How it can be proved, if the one who speaks, has no representation what is on the place? He writes all statements from words in the book Evgeny Buyanov instead of because itself saw conditions on a place of events. Evgeny Buyanov was not in the winter on this place too.

It sounds well reasoned. I do have several of questions.

1. Why didn't the search team see evidence for this snow slide? Could enough snow have slid and blown off the tent during the 24 days to disguise what happened? If it was a slab of snow, did it break up or thaw out in slightly warmer weather?

It is absolutely impossible under laws of physics and conditions on a place of events.
1.Energy of movement snow when all weight stops, pressed to such degree that it is sometimes very difficult for digging a special shovel.
2.In Northern Ural Mountains in current of 4 months (November - March) does not happen thaw. Anyway them never was for the past of 60 years. And the climate has changed towards warming in this time.
3.Warmer weather in January and February on that place, it is temperature not above than-12 … -15C (5 … 10 F).
4.On this place the wind blows off fresh snow so that it means only consolidation as snow crust layer. The snowfall in current of 3 days continuously gives a snow layer about 30 sm (1 ft). If after that the wind from snow on a clone remains nothing blows. Except it dense snow crust which has been generated before and naked stones only.
5.The snow plate has the same structure, as avalanche snow which was condensed at braking, only it consists of the big lumps which have not found there when assorted tent, during any other time.
6.Snow Destruction at инсоляции was possible only for the thickness about 1 mm (~0.04 in). It could be only provided that all time shines the sun and there is no overcast, and temperature not more low than-10S (~3 F). Such conditions for 26 days was not. The sun shone no more than 3 … 5 days in this time, and the clear sky there practically does not happen in general.

2. Why did Igor, Zina and Rustem think that going back to the tent after reaching the cedar tree was worth trying for when they realized they couldn't turn around and go back and dig it out in those conditions a few meters away while on their descent? It makes no survival sense.

At first it is necessary to know precisely that they “went to tent”, instead of have frozen when went downwards on those places where them have found. Such confidence is not present if objectively to look at details on them and round them. On the contrary, there are some signs that they have not reached a cedar. Besides, on a place of events (especially it at clearly night) happens well clearly that in their conditions to find tent above is absolutely not real. It can be casual only. With such probability as if it will be possible to get from gun to target with size 1 … 2 inches from distance 0,5 mi at night and he was blindly.
It not is obviously, but I am ready to prove any it on that place, in the winter and at night. We already did such tests, but under big moon. By the way, the moon was not in sky during events. It should make rising over horizon only at 05.14 AM local time on February, 02 1959. By this time they could not survive any more. Thus it is not known, whether there was overcast and how much it was dense. Besides, this place is in mountains, therefore the moon could appear even more later, than at rising over horizon.

If will attentively look to that things which were very necessary at cedar, but they remained in pockets with these three it turns out that they to fire have not come.

3. What about the flashlight left at the tent?

It is a question which very often set and on which very many can speculate.
I some times spoke with that who have found tent the first (it is Boris Slobtsov and Michael Sharavin) at them the protest when to them ask such question was already developed. Both of them said that precisely do not remember, how it was, and when I already some times asked Boris Slobtsov why at it in poll paper is written down that the lantern has lighted up after has lain 3 weeks on a frost, he at first has told that wrote this paper in 2 months (in April) and did not remember precisely. And still he has told that copied this paper some times as inspector Ivanov forced it to do it. Therefore he wrote all that will come to mind, just it would terminate faster. That that, the lantern could not burn, after it have left for 3 weeks on frost it of rocks that it is impossible. Those electric batteries which then at them could not provide it. In January 2015, on that place, I have specially left on a frost (in tent!) New alcaline batteries. They have ceased to work for LED in 3 or 4 days. The temperature behind a board was at this time from  -20C to -25C (-4F …-13F). In 1959 alcaline batteries did not exist, were usual (salt element of Leklanshe) which froze at more high temperature (when more warmly).
From here it is possible to draw a conclusion:
1.To us it is not clear, whether there was this small lamp actually on tent, or it is result of conversations between participants of search? Especially if to consider that once Michael Sharavin has told that it is possible they it have put there when dug tent on February, 26th 1959. All other participants of search (and Boris Slobtsov too) wrote the papers already in 2 months, therefore there were many results of conversations about all that was, and there could be conversations about that was not.
2.Even Boris Slobtsov considered that it is improbably that the lantern has lighted up. It was, for example, at our conversation on June, 01 2006. (http://perevaldyatlova.narod.ru/beseda_1.html  - in Russian.) and talk some times later.

December 04, 2018, 08:42:23 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


[[  slid down and hit the tent, causing the injuries to three of the bodies found in the ravine, while blocking the entrance of the tent. So the rest of them cut their way out of the tent and removed the injured. ]]  Highly unlikely. Virtually impossible, etc . The injuries to some of the Group were not caused by an avalanche of any description. Details about avalanche injuries that can occur to people have been dealt with in other Topic on this site. Any avalanche of such force to cause some of those severe injuries would also have been powerful enough to sweep the Tent away, etc.


There is no indication that there was any avalanche. On the contrary, there is every indication that no avalanche occurred at the place.

Also, there is no evidence and no reason to take for granted that the Dyatlov group cut the tent themselves. It is an assumption which is entirely unfounded.

February 05, 2019, 02:24:42 PM
Reply #11
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
[[  slid down and hit the tent, causing the injuries to three of the bodies found in the ravine, while blocking the entrance of the tent. So the rest of them cut their way out of the tent and removed the injured. ]]  Highly unlikely. Virtually impossible, etc . The injuries to some of the Group were not caused by an avalanche of any description. Details about avalanche injuries that can occur to people have been dealt with in other Topic on this site. Any avalanche of such force to cause some of those severe injuries would also have been powerful enough to sweep the Tent away, etc.


There is no indication that there was any avalanche. On the contrary, there is every indication that no avalanche occurred at the place.

Also, there is no evidence and no reason to take for granted that the Dyatlov group cut the tent themselves. It is an assumption which is entirely unfounded.

Its interesting that at the Press Conference yesterday apparently the AVALANCHE THEORY is high on the Authorities list of possibilities  !  ?  Or its one of the theories that they think is most likely to explain events.
DB

May 06, 2019, 11:48:28 AM
Reply #12

Clacon

Guest
Quote from: Clacon on April 01, 2019, 09:01:37 AM

Please see my diagram - I know the labaz is way further a distance than the tent, but it could be possible they were headed there? Or have I got it wrong?



I posted this in "the ravine deaths - a theory" and couldn't help but think if I was correct in the orientation of the picture, that they were perhaps trying to get to the storage or labaz instead of the tent?

I'm also wondering though....if it was true that the snow slab is what caused the Rav 3's injuries, and the idea of the coroner was that they would have succumbed to their injuries in about 20 minutes (maybe a little longer for Nikolai), was it possible that they expired on the way down? Wouldn't those who were carrying them have realized this? It must have been very disturbing for them if that is what happened.

Thinking further upon this though, it makes me doubt that the Rav3 were injured at the tent. It took them longer than 20 minutes to get down to the Cedar and so they surely would have died on the way? And I doubt those who were carrying/helping them would have set up a den for them if they were dead AND didn't take their clothes after they had died. (Unless the coroner was wrong and they survived for longer than 20 minutes....)

Also, what about the fact that the Rav 3 were wearing articles of the 2 Yuri's clothing? This surely proves that they were alive after the 2 Yuri's expired - although I cannot say for sure that this proves much, as it isn't clear when the 2 Yuris died or if they even started the fire (I would have assumed so though if the fire had supposedly been burning for 2 hours and they are the only 2 with burns to their flesh). Perhaps the Rav4 came upon them on the way down and they were already dead, they took their clothes and went to look for adequate shelter.

Also, if the three were injured at the tent but were found in the Ravine, how did Kolevatov die if he wasn't initially injured at the tent, but his body was found with the other 3? How to explain the wound behind his ear? Unless he was injured at the tent but feeling okay to get down himself...then Zina, Igor and Rustem go back to try to retrieve equipment to help them after building the den, but expire along the way? Perhaps they all happened upon the Yuri's first and the 3 helped clothe the injured, taking none for themselves but dying of exposure as they were somewhat injured themselves from the snowslab??

Is it more likely to assume the Rav 4 were injured and expired there, OR that they lived for longer than 20 minutes?

On the other hand, the snowslab theory best explains why they exited and abandoned the tent in the manner they did and why they didn't go back to the tent to retrieve protective items.