Theories Discussion > Avalanche

Think so?

(1/3) > >>

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.

sarapuk:
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.

Marchesk:

--- Quote from: sarapuk on October 26, 2018, 04:50:45 PM ---The avalanche theory appears to be wearing a bit thin.
--- End quote ---

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.

sarapuk:
 [[  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.

WAB:

--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---Fearing another such incident,
--- End quote ---

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


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM --- they decided to head back down the mountain
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Marchesk on October 26, 2018, 01:51:51 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version