Theories Discussion > Avalanche
A version of the "avalanche" theory I could actually believe
amashilu:
I always try to put myself in their place, which is impossible, but worth the effort.
We are eating bread and meat in our cold tent when a "small slab slip" slides on top of us and begins to mash our tent. We all jump out, half dressed, and look at the situation. What do we do now? "I vote for walking quietly away for about a mile, half-dressed!" That doesn't make sense. We would dig our jackets and boots out and see if we can, however lamely, rectify the situation and try to last until morning. It's cold and dark and this is the only place we stand a chance. We aren't amateurs and we know this. Start digging, boys and girls!
eurocentric:
--- Quote from: amashilu on February 14, 2023, 11:49:56 AM ---I always try to put myself in their place, which is impossible, but worth the effort.
We are eating bread and meat in our cold tent when a "small slab slip" slides on top of us and begins to mash our tent. We all jump out, half dressed, and look at the situation. What do we do now? "I vote for walking quietly away for about a mile, half-dressed!" That doesn't make sense. We would dig our jackets and boots out and see if we can, however lamely, rectify the situation and try to last until morning. It's cold and dark and this is the only place we stand a chance. We aren't amateurs and we know this. Start digging, boys and girls!
--- End quote ---
I tend to agree. They had dug up the same equivalent volume of the slab slip earlier and manhandled the chunks away, they are seen further down the slope in the rescue photo's. What was to stop them doing this again, exhausting work no doubt but a vital effort required for survival, and if with the benefit of being able to get inside the flap, working your way under the canvas when enough material was gone to push up and get the rest to slide off.
It only makes sense for them not to attempt this if serious injury occurred at the tent, enough of them were incapacitated, but are we to believe that two with flailed chests then staggered down that mountain? And unless his head injury came later, Tibo was dragged or carried?
eurocentric:
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on February 13, 2023, 01:11:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---You're mistaking the uniformity of the fresh snow on the pass with the two different areas there'd be near the tent, where men would take one step to the side and suddenly be standing on denser snow crust after they'd been standing on less dense fresh snow. Compressive density is a scientific measurement of this resistence in snow. It's a question of them noticing this underfoot in one immediate area.
In the photo's below the tent has been dismantled and dragged to the right, and the contents over to the left. There is no sign of any slab slip event in the middle or difference in compressive density underfoot across that entire surface.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-018.jpg
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-019-1.jpg
The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1958-Subpolar-Ural-22.jpg
--- End quote ---
I disagree, we are not talking about UK snow. If fresh snow fell, or was blown on top of Rustem and covered him with 600 mm of snow, then any hole would be covered the same with the same density. Or at least the potential.
There is no sign of weight of the searchers sinking in the snow around Rustem. It looks like they dug the hole. Enough to stand at the edge with no collapse and no foot prints..the same around the tent.
The photos you post are post excavation.
Would there not be a hole or higher ridge towards the slope assuming that the last two photos suggest they dug down 1 meter?
You say.
"The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip."
I don't think the tent had two settings for height regarding Forrest or slope. Rather just what was suitable. It's a choice .digging a hole for the tent has no relevance on high or low setting. It's about making a suitable foundation and minimalizing the effect of wind.
I would argue, any snow slip/slide would be gone in 24 hours of wind or snow. There is a link that demonstrates that Futher along the slope that an avalanche disappeared in a couple of hours. This is from the suggestion that a snow slip did not move the foundation of the tent, perhaps more from the spoil of digging the trench as in the last two photos.
However, I remain comfortable with the fact Rustem was covered with firm snow. They used probs to try and find the other bodies on the slope, not walking about guessing how firm the crust was .
--- End quote ---
It has nothing to do with British mountains or British snow. The different densities of snow is universal, it's why it's possible to calculate how much material the hikers would have dug out when making their trench, selecting snow crust over much lighter freshly fallen snow.
You are comparing a site 3/4s of a mile away, with a uniform surface, with two different surfaces side-by-side at the tent where men should notice a difference underfoot, however subtle that may be. Regardless of the excavation of the tent trench I have been referring to where the men are shown standing, above the tent.
There's only one photo showing the feet of men digging up Rustem and they are wearing overshoes, the men at the tent are just in their boots and their heels do not even sink in. The higher you go the colder it gets and the older, wind scoured snow crust is much firmer.
We know that fresh snowfall fell further down the mountain, it's why the downhill footprints end 1/3rd of the way down, and fresh snow would be blown downhill, scoured off the higher ground, to rapidly help cover bodies and also create a big snowdrift at the ravine, where bodies ended up under metres of the stuff. I understand the point you have been making that this stuff appears to match the surface strength of that at the tent but I have not been suggested that the men downhill would be sinking up to their knees.
None of this explains why the tent was not damaged by a slab slip, the uphill side, which would take greatest pressure to the canvas from this event, yet had no tears or busted seams beyond a hole which was already there and had a coat stuffed inside. The tent remained vertical and none of its corner anchors broke away. It doesn't address how selective the snow was in perfectly filling a deep void while leaving footprints 6ft away uncovered.
The hikers retrieved torches including a dynamo type, a camera, and I have read somewhere that there was even a brown blanket found at the cedar. Arguably, if the rusting can of condensed milk found at the cedar is from 1959, they may even have taken that with them too, since condensed milk is listed on the tent contents, it didn't all end up in the cache.
The tent would have height settings in that it was frameless, so it was easy to adjust the height by lowering the sides, the corner anchors were secured to eyelets at the bottom of the roof, not the sides.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-Pass-1957-Northern-Ural-26.jpg
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---It has nothing to do with British mountains or British snow. The different densities of snow is universal, it's why it's possible to calculate how much material the hikers would have dug out when making their trench, selecting snow crust over much lighter freshly fallen snow.
--- End quote ---
My apologies Eurocentric. When I say British snow, I mean the variables that we might experience in the UK. The snow over Rustem and the tent was hard or firn as the translation goes. Depending on the extremes of the tempature of the snow and humidity . We can only guess at how much material they dug out. The lighter snow would not remain for long on that slope. It is exposed and the wind blows away what is not firn. The searchers feet did not sink in to the snow around the tent either.
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---You are comparing a site 3/4s of a mile away, with a uniform surface, with two different surfaces side-by-side at the tent where men should notice a difference underfoot, however subtle that may be. Regardless of the excavation of the tent trench I have been referring to where the men are shown standing, above the tent.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure what site you are referring too. If it's the tent, soft , light snow will be blown away , if there was raised hard snow from them digging the trench then this would mostl likely been erroded by wind blown snow. Snow moves like the desert sands.
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---There's only one photo showing the feet of men digging up Rustem and they are wearing overshoes, the men at the tent are just in their boots and their heels do not even sink in. The higher you go the colder it gets and the older, wind scoured snow crust is much firmer.
--- End quote ---
How much firmer? There is no sign of footprints by the searchers around Rustem. I was thinking you meant they could tell if there was a snow slap at the tent because their feet would penetrate the snow? My question is why would it show up soft snow when even the snow down by Rustem was firm enough to support the searchers weight?
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---We know that fresh snowfall fell further down the mountain, it's why the downhill footprints end 1/3rd of the way down, and fresh snow would be blown downhill, scoured off the higher ground, to rapidly help cover bodies and also create a big snowdrift at the ravine, where bodies ended up under metres of the stuff. I understand the point you have been making that this stuff appears to match the surface strength of that at the tent but I have not been suggested that the men downhill would be sinking up to their knees.
--- End quote ---
All snow would blow , the snow would probably have blown there given the wind the day before. So I don't know if you mean fresh snow from the sky straight down , or other snow blown from the slopes and other valleys.
I would suspect the snow in the ravine was already there. It had all season to gather there. It's collected snow in a ravine although it most likely drifted there. I think that they possibly made a snow cafe , or found one at the ravine and it collapsed. They reported that the snow was harder above the ravine 4 and requested 6 strong men to the digging. The difference of the density of that snow is worthy of note. Potentially adding merit to a snow collapse changing the density of the snow .
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---None of this explains why the tent was not damaged by a slab slip, the uphill side, which would take greatest pressure to the canvas from this event, yet had no tears or busted seams beyond a hole which was already there and had a coat stuffed inside. The tent remained vertical and none of its corner anchors broke away. It doesn't address how selective the snow was in perfectly filling a deep void while leaving footprints 6ft away uncovered.
--- End quote ---
1 pole remained vertical. It only takes a small snow collapse to give the impression of a avalanche. Perhaps small slides following. I'm not sure if there were foot prints 6 ft away though?
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---The hikers retrieved torches including a dynamo type, a camera, and I have read somewhere that there was even a brown blanket found at the cedar. Arguably, if the rusting can of condensed milk found at the cedar is from 1959, they may even have taken that with them too, since condensed milk is listed on the tent contents, it didn't all end up in the cache.
--- End quote ---
The torch may have been outside at the entrance? The other in a pocket. The camera case may have been around the neck, I think it remains unclear if the camera was in the case. I think the blanket was a mistaken report and and acknowledged. It may have been confusion with the way Yuri's shirt was supporting the snow if you look at the photos from the ceder.
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---The tent would have height settings in that it was frameless, so it was easy to adjust the height by lowering the sides, the corner anchors were secured to eyelets at the bottom of the roof, not the sides.
--- End quote ---
I don't disagree that the tent can be adjusted for height. I hope this post doesn't sound combative and we may be thinking the same but describing it differently. I'm having software issues and tried to write this twice. lalala1
WinterLeia:
I would never completely discount the theory of an avalanche with the information we have , because obviously something very unusual happened that night. Otherwise, the mystery would have been solved very quickly. I am, however, very skeptical of it being pushed as the official explanation without acknowledging that there are problems with the theory. And there are problems with it, just as there are problems with other theories. Of course, something happened. But I suspect that this theory is attractive to the powers that be because it places the fault completely on the group itself. They set up the tent on the slope. They caused the conditions that led to the avalanche. It wasn’t even nature. The students engineered their own destruction.
They could have. It’s quite possible, even with all the experience they had. The one thing that can never be factored out of any equation is human error. But I don’t think I’m being too conspiratorial to point out that there is a self-serving quality to the authorities embracing the theory so whole-heartedly, which may be the reason they do so rather than it being as set in stone as they want people to believe. It places the blame on dead people, who can’t defend themselves, and no one else can really do so without a shadow of doubt cast on whatever argument they may bring up, (I.e: footprint evidence).
In that vein, here are a few things to keep in mind regarding the avalanche theory. The injuries that the hikers sustained are part of the evidence of a slab avalanche at the tent, and are in fact, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for such an event. Once you start arguing that such injuries could have happened elsewhere, like at the ravine, you’ve weakened the theory logarithmically. The injuries the hikers suffered were not typical of avalanche victims. That’s why it didn’t hold up in 1959. However, the slab avalanche allows for a scenario in which the students would have been caught between the floor of the tent, which had been hardened by being leveled and having backpacks or something placed down in a way to fortify it, and a small, but heavy shelf of snow hanging over the tent that would just come down in a single, catastrophic event, a slab rolling off a weaker layer beneath.
Such conditions would not exist, if say, they had dug out the snow den at the ravine and it had collapsed on them. They could never have gotten the ground so packed and the snow would not have caved in on them in the same way. So we end up again with avalanche victims exhibiting injuries very unusual for avalanche victims and no explanation for why, whereas the slab avalanche provides that explanation. And the medical examiner had said that Luda and Semyon’s injuries would have happened in the same cataclysmic event and were unlikely to be the result of a fall. It had to be something that caused greater internal pressure than external pressure, like being crushed between a slab and a hard floor. Plus, even if they had both fallen in the ravine at the exact same time, it’s very unlikely they would have hit the bottom in the exact same way.
Here’s the problem. Slab avalanche happens. Semyon and Luda, at least, would have been injured. Nikolai’s injuries, however, could have been caused by a fall, as long as it wasn’t a mere stumble. So let’s say he fell at the ravine. They carry Luda and Semyon down the hill, make a fire, and then go dig out a snow den. How long would that take? Twenty minutes. Does twenty minutes sound reasonable? Any less than twenty minutes. That’s a lot of work for twenty minutes.
Why am I making a big deal of this? Because that’s all the time the medical examiner gave for Luda to survive from the time she sustained her injuries. So, if it took longer than twenty minutes to dig their injured companions out of the tent, carry them down the hill, make a fire, go dig a snow den with their bare hands presumably, and prepare the floor with tree clippings and discarded clothing, it means they carried a dead body to the den and placed her in it instead of laying Luda out next to Yuri and Krivo. And that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Now, maybe they weren’t sure she was dead (rather unbelievable, but not impossible, I guess). Or maybe she was injured. But then something else happened at the ravine that further injured her, and that’s what drastically reduced her life expectancy. Possible, yes. It’s also speculation that can’t be proved and nothing in the study or the slab avalanche theory bolsters it in any way that speculation in other theories are not bolstered. That’s why I believe the theory is being made to look for better than what it actually is.
Secondly, the possibility of one avalanche occurring is astronomically high. So when people suggest that another could have been triggered by the first, they need to get a better understanding of the situation, because they’re thinking like the students were in the alps. The authorities are suggesting a single, localized event that’s centered at the tent because that is the only type of avalanche that could have happened at that location and the snow would have only rolled maybe a few feet down the hill from the tent. It would not have triggered another avalanche, and once you get in the trees, they anchor the snow in place, making it even more improbable that an avalanche would occur. It’s more likely than meeting BigFoot, in my opinion. But that’s about all I can say for the theory.
And, honestly, if all that happened is one small, localized avalanche, I don’t know why they would have taken so long to return to their tent. How long would you wait around on a frigid night in barely any clothes if, say, ten minutes had passed and nothing else occurred? Yet, the evidence seems to suggest that Igor, Rustem, and Zina didn’t try to return to the tent until their situation had got really desperate.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version