Theories Discussion > Avalanche

You want avalanches? Here we go

(1/8) > >>

Dominov:
Russian prosecutors decided that they will look into the avalanche theory. Ok, lets have a look. Google Earth is a mighty tool to do that in your cozy home.

First we need to locate the approximate area where the group pitched their tent. As a reference I use a picture taken by the first search team.


Ok, thats not bad. It seems that the real location was a litte further down and further north. So far so good.

No let's look for danger zones behind the tent where avalanches could start. These are slopes with inclinations higher than 25%. And yes there is a candidate!



The area in dark magenta is a slope with an average inclination of 26%. There are small areas with inclinations up to 40%. Conclusion: There is a risk that an avalanche could ocurr there. But does it overlap with the location of the tent? Let's see.



Yes. The potential location of the tent slightly overlaps with our avalanche zone. So did we prove that the tent was hit by an avalanche? No. We also see that the north-eastern corner of the Dead Mountain is a windy area (cyan). The patterns in the snow tell us that winds flow over this slope most of the time. This means that snow is carried away most of the time. But avalanches only occur if the amount of snow becomes critical. It's unlikey that a critical mass of snow can be accumulated in this «danger zone». We shouldn't forget neither that it was cold winter when the incident occured. It was cold, windy and it was snowing. Cold snow and wind also lower the likelihood of avalanches. Ok, so we are down to, let's say, a likelihood of 20%. Considering the fact that the tent area most likely didn't overlap with the avalanche danger zone we are down to a likelihood of 10%.

Also considering that the first search team didn't report any signs of an avalanche we are down to 2%. And after having a look at the tent whose entrance was still standing we go down to 1%. The first thing to fall would be the entrance of the tent (on the side of the avalanche zone). Ok, 1%. And yes... is the group's behaviour consistent with an avalanche incident? No. Likelihood down to 0.1% which is still more likely than an alien threat but as likely as the MENK!!!!

Conclusion: Avalanche - Never. The new investigation is a waste of time.

regards

Dominov

Nigel Evans:
Good images, imo clearly explaining the decision to place the torch and showing that Zina gave up at the foot of the steepest part of the return path.

Star man:
Good analysis. My skill with google earth is not that good.

So 0.1% is actually more than I was thinking the risk was. So is it possible that there was a snow slide in the area indicated and the Dyatlov group heard it and thought the avalanche was coming their way and therefore fled?

Dominov:

--- Quote from: Star man on February 06, 2019, 08:52:15 AM ---Good analysis. My skill with google earth is not that good.

So 0.1% is actually more than I was thinking the risk was. So is it possible that there was a snow slide in the area indicated and the Dyatlov group heard it and thought the avalanche was coming their way and therefore fled?

--- End quote ---

Look, I learned skiing in the Swiss Mountains at the age of six. Although the Dead Mountain has very few steeper parts we would call it a hill for idiots (beginners). The slope of the Dead Mountain is not a killer, nor is it a place where avalanches typically occur, although I found traces of snow slides on the eastern slope. But well... that depends. Weather, season, sun, quality of snow, inclination, wind, temperature, orientation toward the sun are some of the factors.  Snow slides are possible there, but unlikely, especially on the north-eastern side. But... The sound of an explosion can cause snow slabs/planks/slides. That's how we trigger them here artificially in order to minimize the risk for our appreciated tourists. In the morning in the Alps you often hear explosion bangs. Sounds scary.

Would we hear a snow slide in the extreme winter conditions of 1959? I doubt it. No, we wouldn't.

Regards

Dominov

sarapuk:

--- Quote from: Dominov on February 06, 2019, 06:55:53 AM ---Russian prosecutors decided that they will look into the avalanche theory. Ok, lets have a look. Google Earth is a mighty tool to do that in your cozy home.

First we need to locate the approximate area where the group pitched their tent. As a reference I use a picture taken by the first search team.


Ok, thats not bad. It seems that the real location was a litte further down and further north. So far so good.

No let's look for danger zones behind the tent where avalanches could start. These are slopes with inclinations higher than 25%. And yes there is a candidate!



The area in dark magenta is a slope with an average inclination of 26%. There are small areas with inclinations up to 40%. Conclusion: There is a risk that an avalanche could ocurr there. But does it overlap with the location of the tent? Let's see.



Yes. The potential location of the tent slightly overlaps with our avalanche zone. So did we prove that the tent was hit by an avalanche? No. We also see that the north-eastern corner of the Dead Mountain is a windy area (cyan). The patterns in the snow tell us that winds flow over this slope most of the time. This means that snow is carried away most of the time. But avalanches only occur if the amount of snow becomes critical. It's unlikey that a critical mass of snow can be accumulated in this «danger zone». We shouldn't forget neither that it was cold winter when the incident occured. It was cold, windy and it was snowing. Cold snow and wind also lower the likelihood of avalanches. Ok, so we are down to, let's say, a likelihood of 20%. Considering the fact that the tent area most likely didn't overlap with the avalanche danger zone we are down to a likelihood of 10%.

Also considering that the first search team didn't report any signs of an avalanche we are down to 2%. And after having a look at the tent whose entrance was still standing we go down to 1%. The first thing to fall would be the entrance of the tent (on the side of the avalanche zone). Ok, 1%. And yes... is the group's behaviour consistent with an avalanche incident? No. Likelihood down to 0.1% which is still more likely than an alien threat but as likely as the MENK!!!!

Conclusion: Avalanche - Never. The new investigation is a waste of time.

regards

Dominov

--- End quote ---

Good Post Dominov. Yes I think we are going to hear a lot of argument about the AVALANCHE THEORY now that it appears that the Authorities have made it one of their most likelyTheories.  However I wouldnt go as far as saying that the new investigation is a waste of time, because we still dont know all the details and there will be the site investigation beginning in March. And any investigation will put the Authorities on the spot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version