Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: gunmat on March 09, 2024, 04:41:38 AM
-
I have read Vladimir Borzenkov's analysis and fully support his criticism of Johan Gaume and Alexander M. Puzrin's avalanche theory. Gaume and Puzrin claim to have created a terrain model of the area with a resolution of 9 cm, which they have used to analyze the avalanche conditions. With 10 years of experience in digital terrain modeling and studying surface runoff, I am highly interested in reproducing the model on my own computer, as Gaume and Puzrin use this model as the basis for their analysis.
There are many ways to build a terrain model. The raw data for a terrain model is a point cloud with elevation data, usually expressed as points per square meter. Through an interpolation technique, a surface consisting of squares is constructed, with a chosen square size. When the team mentions a resolution of 9 cm, it must refer to the square size in their model. They do not specify the point density in points per square meter, nor do they mention the interpolation technique used to create the terrain surface.
Different interpolation techniques can yield different results. To conduct a detailed study of this slope, the data points should have a density of at least 4 points per square meter. This will also provide a clear picture of the terrain roughness, which acts as an anchor for avalanches.
If anyone knows where I can obtain this model, please send it to me via Theodora. I am not interested in the finished model, but rather the data points in LIDAR format or as a point cloud (XYZ format, or even Esri SHP format). This will allow me to reproduce a much clearer picture of the area than what has been produced so far.
(Since the model is used as evidence for a theory, it should be open for anyone to recreate the model)
Gunvald
-
I wish you luck and hope for a report of your findings. Too, if you can diffentiate the avalanche phenomena from a more localized slab slide, that would be good. The slab slide has snow layers of differing hardness as a critical factor for slip proclivity.
-
A precise terrain model will reveal details in the area around where the tent was located. A runoff model will predict with great accuracy where a potential avalanche might have been triggered to hit the tent. It will also accurately reveal the extent of such a slab avalanche. And, most importantly, it will draw a correct profile of the terrain along a potential avalanche path. In short, it will narrow down the possibilities for avalanches.
It's strange that the Dyatlov Pass Committee hasn't archived the raw data Gaume used in his analysis. Gaume's analysis has been published in major Western media as the solution to the mystery, virtually unopposed. When someone, adorned with academic regalia, launches a theory, they easily get their findings published without serious contradiction. I don't believe in the avalanche theory because, based on logical reasoning, most conclusions can be intercepted. It's too lengthy to delve into here. I need the model that was created for further study.
-
The fact is that so far the avalanche theory has only been confirmed by a mysterious incident with tourists in February 1959.
The avalanche theory was promoted by a retired relative of mine, but I am not yet retired, and in my normal work I do not so easily grasp dubious assumptions.
If we consider 10-20 hypotheses, then to some people the avalanche theory seems the most possible. And since there is no other explanation, it means that the whole explanation is an avalanche.
Personally, the theory of an avalanche that slid onto a scarf also seems incredible to me.
And not just me. If the incident with tourists has some other explanation, then the avalanche theory is not needed. If there was no avalanche, then the conclusions of Swiss scientists can be either correct (an avalanche is possible at another time within 100 years) or incorrect (an avalanche is generally impossible there).
===
Дело в том, что пока лавинная теория подтверждается только загадочным происшествием с туристами в феврале 1959 года.
Лавинную теорию продвигал мой родственник на пенсии, но я пока ещё не на пенсии, и в сваей обычной работе я не так легко хватаюсь за сомнительные предположения.
Если рассмотреть 10-20 гипотез, то некоторым людям теория лавина кажется наиболее возможное. А раз другого объяснения нет, значит, всё объяснение в лавине.
Лично мне теория лавины, которая сползла на платку кажется тоже невероятной.
И не только мне. Если происшествие с туристами имеет какое-то другое объяснение, то теория лавины не нужна. В случае, если лавина не было, то выводы швейцарских учёных могут быть как правильными (лавина возможна в другое время за 100 лет), так и не правильными (лавина вообще там невозможна).
-
Thank you for the comment. Based on data from registered avalanches, which have been measured and photographed, 1 out of 103 avalanches are triggered at a slope of 25 degrees. So far, avalanches with a slope of 20 degrees have not been observed and documented. G&P's theory is based on the slope of the terrain without snow (terrain surface). I believe this is debatable. In my opinion, it is the slope of the avalanche path, after the avalanche has occurred, that forms the basis of established statistics. But this is a bit unclear.
There is much more to discuss regarding G&P's theory, but it goes too far to do it here. According to known statistics, there is slightly less than a 0.01 (1%) probability that an avalanche will occur at a slope of 25 degrees. There are other hypotheses that do not claim to be scientifically based, and therefore cannot be directly compared with the avalanche theory. Therefore, one cannot measure the avalanche hypothesis against other hypotheses. Personally, I believe that several hypotheses contain credible elements, without any of them hitting the final goal.
"THEORY IS LIKE A PAIR OF GLASSES. THOSE WITH POOR VISION CAN BENEFIT FROM THEM WITH GOOD RESULTS. BUT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THOSE WITH NORMAL VISION HAVING THEIR SIGHT WEAKENED BY EXCESSIVE USE OF THESE PAIR OF GLASSES." (Franz Grillparzer 1791-1872)
-
It should also be added that an avalanche does not guarantee death or any injuries. Especially an avalanche at low angles of inclination.
Many people do not suffer after the avalanche. Rescuer Sogrin got out of the avalanche (and snow slab) 2 times.
-
I think there are several avalanche theories and various interpretations of that theory , not just G&P's model.
If there's a 1% chance of a snow slide or avalanche then there's a possibility.
I'm not sure how the terrain roughness anchors a slab slide though? (This is where my lack of knowledge comes in). If a interpolation technique is used to create the terrain surface , would that not be the opposite of what G and P are suggesting? Also, I'm not sure where run off comes in?.
I think the theory of the slab slide is to do with the different layers of snow that build up on the slope through the season. Hard snow, wet snow , freezing , mild temperatures etc. The angles of these layers will be different depending on the conditions of each season and weather variables. All creating weak and strong layers. Like lots of tiny ball bearings between thicker slabs. ( I'm sure there's more technical words within avalanche experts).
As I understand it , it's about the sheer force between the different layers of snow and not the actual ground terrain, the snow does not break away from the ground surface to cause the slide but slides on a smooth slope.
I would explain it like sheets of glass at different thicknesses, different strengths and density lying on top of each other , a little more and a little less at different parts.
When a vertical cut is made, it leaves a potential for a slide, if the wind is blowing from the ridge and carrying snow , it deposits it on these layers above the tent, at some tipping point one of the layers gives way as the weight of new snow, wind etc exceed the adhesion between the snow layers , it's not a giant avalanche.
It would be great to see if you can model this on your computer. I think there's a lot of maths involved for snow models though.
-
Thank you for your response. I cannot delve further into my analysis here because it requires sketches and images, which I cannot post here.
When I mention interpolation techniques, it refers to how a terrain model is constructed. It starts with data points containing elevation data along with plane coordinates. Then, interpolation is used between the points to build a surface. There are many different interpolation techniques that can be used, depending on the purpose of the model. Different interpolation techniques can yield very different surfaces. The surface is used to calculate the terrain slope. If one desires a model that is visually appealing, interpolation techniques that provide a smoother and more "fancy" surface can be used. However, such a model can deviate significantly from a model built using triangulation, for example. That's why I want the original data points so that a model can be built that can be used by others in future studies of the phenomenon and for illustrations of the accident.
The slope of the avalanche path determines whether an avalanche can occur. Everything else are parameters that nuance the possibilities of avalanches. Avalanches do not release on horizontal terrain, regardless of snow conditions and layering, but they release with great certainty on a slope of 45 degrees.
Vegetation and large rocks peaking above snow act as anchors to hold the snow in place and prevent it from sliding.
It is not necessary at all to use complicated equations to identify areas with potential avalanche danger.
-
Thanks gunmat .
I've had a Google at interpolation techniques and I think I have a general understanding. My observations are this is not what Gaume and Puzrin claim ( I read something the film frozen and software) . The media are awful at reporting and publishing data and the Dyatlov pass is one example. It's just to get clicks or views for adverts. I don't think anyone believes it to be the solution,it was just put forward as an unchallenged article to potentially solve the mystery. If it gets readers or views, the journalist has done their job I suppose.
However, I would debate your point.
"The slope of the avalanche path determines whether an avalanche can occur. Everything else are parameters that nuance the possibilities of avalanches. Avalanches do not release on horizontal terrain, regardless of snow conditions and layering, but they release with great certainty on a slope of 45 degrees."
I don't think this is what is being proposed by G&P. There is no natural avalanche path in the area of the tent, I don't think that's what they are putting forward. Its more like if you have a slope of grass and earth at a slight angle and you dig/cut a hole/pit into it , would it potentially collapse?. Nothing would happen if one didn't dig into it?.
It would seem the slope has had years of erosion with bare stones and streams, the natural process of run off,wind, rain and gravity etc.
I don't think the slope alone determines an avalanche, there are weather conditions and interactions and G&P do mention this.
The depth of the snow and it's layers are quite important, I think , possibly more at less steep angles. This is where I would think calculations do get complicated. There's a science to it and people are taught how to avoid the risks, especially when skiing .
Depending on how we interpret the avalanche theory will give us different conclusions, personally I think a small localised snow slide or collapse may have given an impression of worse to come for the hikers , then they just decided to move to the forest quickly until the best opportunity to return.
I look forward to seeing your software model.
-
"Apologies for not being able to debate slope angle and the other parameters triggering an avalanche. Slope angle is clearly the most crucial parameter regarding avalanche release. I have studied G&P's two publications on the Dyatlov mystery, so I have a fairly good understanding of their theory. To build the model, I need the data points, but it seems no one knows where they are."
-
I would guess the data points don't exist. It's just a theory with a model of a small snow slide not an avalanche unfortunately.
-
Our relative speaks somewhere in the middle of the movie "Mistery of the Dyatlov Pass" (Ural Television Agency, 1997-98)
The first to offer is a version completely devoid of mysticism: the version of a participant in the search for the Dyatlov group, a man who has been working on this topic for more than 30 years, Moisei Abramovich Axelrod, who received the title of Master of Sports in Tourism as one of the first in the Urals.
(I won’t describe the avalanche version here)
[–] And the guys died, some on the mountain, some in the forest... Indeed, the hypothesis very convincingly proves all the damage. This version has been suffered for years, and, according to Moisei Abramovich, it covers everything. He said this: “We need to convey this guess to people, while I’m alive.” The version is certainly good, materialistic, but there is one discrepancy in it: in the place where the tent stood, and on the entire visible slope, that is, above and below, right and left, in principle there can be no talk of any avalanche there. Any specialist will confirm this. And at the same time, the climbers who were there then, they clearly spoke about this, and it is in practice.
Before this speech, few people knew about this incident and few people thought about it.
What was the point of conveying something to people? On the contrary, after this film, when it was shown several times on television, people began to heatedly argue and discuss... Some agree, others disagree.
I wrote to his wife by Skype and scolded her for letting the TV people into the house. More precisely, I wrote in such a way that they did not achieve what they wanted. I didn’t write about the fact that he doesn’t have any guesses, but only misconceptions. But adherents appeared.
Indeed, we need to convey this paradox to people as an example of how far you can go in your imagination.
(https://i.ibb.co/jkPb07S/axelrod-1997.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0yRm4Px)
Наш родственник выступает где-то в середине фильма Тайна перевала Дятлова (Телевизионное агентство Урала, 1997-98)
Первой предлагаем версию, начисто лишённую мистики: версия участника поисков дятловцев, человека, занимающегося этой темой более 30 лет, Моисея Абрамовича Аксельрода, получившего звание мастера спорта по туризму одним из первых на Урале.
(не буду описывать здесь версию лавины)
[–] И ребята погибли, кто на горе, кто в лесу… Действительно, гипотеза очень убедительно доказывает все повреждения. Эта версия выстрадана годами, и, по мнению Моисея Абрамовича, она всё охватывает. Он сказал так: «Надо эту догадку донести до людей, как говорится, пока я жив». Версия, безусловно хороша, материалистична, но есть в ней одна неувязка: на том месте, где стояла палатка, и на всём склоне обозримом, то есть выше-ниже там, справа-слева, ни о какой лавине там речь идти в принципе не может. Любой специалист это подтвердит. И в то же время там альпинисты, которые тогда были, они об этом однозначно говорили, в деле это есть.
До этого выступления об этом происшествии мало кто знал и мало кто думал.
Какой смысл было доносить что-то людям? Наоборот, после этого фильма, когда его несколько раз показали по телевидению, люди стали горячо спорить и обсуждать... Одни согласны, другие не согласны.
Я написал его жене по Скайпу и отругал её за то, что они пустили домой телевизионщиков. Точнее, я написал так, что они добились не того чего хотели. Про то, что никакой догадки у него нет, а есть одни заблуждения, я не стал писать. Зато появились адепты.
Хотя, действительно надо донести этот парадокс людям, как пример того, как далеко можно уйти в своём воображении.
https://youtu.be/jdM99vJ_96A
-
"Interesting, too bad I don't understand Russian, so I can't follow what they're saying in the video. Is there an English commentary or text available?"
-
I posted now https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=1613.0
English text (translation) goes as first message. Russian original is divided on 2 parts because this site didn't allow ne to send a whole text in a single message
-
I don't think we can consider slope to be the sole factor. We must consider layer densities, wind speed, deposition of snow windward of the tent as well as the levelling depth of the tent.
-
I don't think we can consider slope to be the sole factor. We must consider layer densities, wind speed, deposition of snow windward of the tent as well as the levelling depth of the tent.
Glennm, your thoughts are similar to mine. I would love to eliminate the avalanche theory through experimental means. I believe snow layers and different consistency of these snow layers is not being understood correctly.
Although some put forward that the injuries were made by a snow slab , I don't think that's the case. In its basic form and lack of hard evidence from any other statements, we are only left with the hikers leaving the tent. There seems to be enough logic in the events after this , that caused their own deaths due to the weather.
Why, why why?. What could make them leave their resources for survival?
Until someone can say Categorically that they know it was KGB , outsiders, rockets , aliens etc etc. It's just blurb .
-
Ziljoe, it is curious that all the avalanche naysayers are so confident of their arguement. When the dead were searched for, what tool was used? Yes, an avalanche probe. I sometimes wish it was litttle green men from Mars. It would be so much more direct, laughing out loud. Oh well, we,will continue to " probe" this mystery.
-
Glennm, until someone says something with confidence and commitment, I don't see much alternative than something involving the weather and conditions at that moment in time.
From viewing the recent expedition videos , I believe they found it hard going, with snow mobiles and modern equipment ( clothes , sleeping bags and tents) .
The only facts we really have are the statements from the case files , everything after is pure speculation, even the later statements and interviews. As far as I'm aware, no one says for a fact they were to sign a non disclosure etc. They always someone else did , or they heard this or heard that . Not one person has said a fact about bodies been taken back and forth, no one has spoke about firing a rocket or pressing the button for said rocket/s,. No son or daughter has said their father / cousin/ sister was involved. No geologist, pilot, ground crew, Mansi, student has said they actually know.
As you say, follow the money, if someone knew different, they would be in the money to tell us all?
-
I have spent time reading and digesting your text. Regarding Axelrod's interview, and indeed all witness statements afterward, one should maintain a certain skepticism towards things recounted long after an event. Memory is not a video camera that records an observation, stores it, and then plays it back when necessary. Memory is a continuous mental process that is influenced by new information all the time. The American forensic psychologist Elizabeth Loftus and others have shown through clinical experiments how memory changes when new information is added to a witness. Therefore, a reasoned criticism of such statements by this man makes is appropriate.
--
I fully agree that one must filter out the objective facts from speculations in order to see clearly. There are too many disconnected speculations in circulation, which also tend to be directly irrelevant and do not contribute to shedding new light on the mystery. That's why the written reports and pictures from 1959 is a goldmine. They can be analyzed and criticized in an objective manner.
--
The first thing I would address is the claim that the tent was cut from the inside. This is a peculiar claim that has been given a central place in hypotheses about what happened. One simply cannot conclude whether the canvas was cut from the inside or the outside. But this claim places the individuals inside the tent at the time of the accident and is therefore convenient for those who adhere to an avalanche accident, while excluding external attacks. However, this can simply be reconstructed by hanging up a canvas, driving a sharp knife through it from the outside, turning the knife so that the peak points downward along the canvas, pulling downward and turning the knife so that the peak points diagonally towards the canvas on the inside, and jerking it. Damage will then appear on the inside of the canvas. Such a sequence would be the natural way to cut into the tent from the outside with great force.
--
The purpose of such a reconstruction is not to prove that the group was attacked from the outside, but to question the assumption that the tent was cut from the inside. It can then be questioned whether the group was inside the tent when it was cut open. Any reconstruction can be filmed and submitted as evidence in the case. It cannot be asserted with certainty that the individuals were inside the tent and cut holes in the canvas to get out.
--
Broadly speaking, the case can be explained by two hypotheses:
1. A criminal act
2. A natural accident
If a criminal act occurred, the motive has a central place in the hypothesis.
A credible motive that is easy to communicate must be established. Establishing a motive that withstands criticism is not done overnight and requires thorough investigation before being launched. Possible actors must be highlighted and attributed credible motives.
Possible criminal acts may include:
1a. People such as the students encountered on the way
1b. Social outcasts from the Mansi population
1c. Intervention by secret services (KGB)
It has been said by a sociologist that the Mansi people are a peaceful group who could never do such a thing. Such a statement is simply nonsense. There are fundamentalist and unstable individuals in all ethnic groups around the world, including the Mansi people.
If it is a natural accident, it can be summarized as follows:
2a. Avalanche
2b. Reindeer fleeing the weather, chased by predators, or frightened by light phenomena and sound
2c. Another accident not caused by humans, but where humans decide to stage the scene.
2a requires a more thorough investigation of the avalanche theory. It is absolutely necessary to establish a finely meshed digital terrain model for the scene, which provides precise information about all relevant conditions. Weather report data must be collected to strengthen or weaken the avalanche theory. The G&P hypothesis must be examined with a critical eye.
2b requires the compilation of data on reindeer behavior, occurrences of wolves and wolverines in the area, as well as data from other phenomena that may have frightened the animals.
2c requires a description of the accident and a clear description of people's motives for concealing the accident instead of reporting it to the authorities.
-
I agree that signs of the tent being cut from the inside could have been done from the outside. There is discussion somewhere in the threads about this. No evidence alone or in isolation gives us a clear picture of what occurred, whether that be , beast, man, or some unique weather condition.
For me , the reported raised foot prints with enough detail to identify toes or socks in the actual print is a compelling complication for outsiders being involved in any capacity.
1) it indicates that when these footprints were made , there was a significant change in the snow conditions/temperature.
2) there is no sign of other people or animals in the forest trails or on the mountain slopes .
We are left with, tent , foot prints from tent down the slope to the ceder, underdressed hikers and that's about it.
The hikers are where they are supposed to be on their hike, the diaries match up as do the photos that we are supplied with.
If the slope above the tent was 45 degrees, no one would be asking any questions and we probably wouldn't have heard about this case.
The G&P hypotheses is not the only avalanche theory and not everyone agrees with the injuries happing at the tent but I agree it should be questioned. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough data to replicate the wind and weather for the season of 1959, if there was a snow/slab slide , it may be dependent on the what type of snow first covered the slope in December 1958. Maybe if you can run a program or model of about 20 degrees with various adhesive layers adding weight and wind/ force on these layers to find a tipping point for movement with various angles between different layer's. It would be great if you start there with your skills, hopefully by then someone will have the data you need from the terrain.
There are some answers and discussions regarding Mansi, outsiders, criminal motives, animals and staging within the threads and posts that you mentioned. The strongest and newest work that is ongoing is teddy's theory or hypothesis which I'm sure you will know about.
Anything you can add with your software skills will be a great help! You may get a few requests.
-
There were some change in the weather conditions, but the temperatur dropped from -14 to -30, from first to second of february. That works against the snowlab theory. It is when the weather raises very much, and reach close to Zero, when all alramclocks ring according to avalanche. There were not a strong wind, Itwas fresh breeze from northwest with a stable windspeed around 10 m/s..Lookup the beaufort scale to place the wind strenght.
https://dyatlovpass.com/investigation-materials-2?rbid=18461
-
There are a lot of contradictions about the weather conditions. Many experts say different things unfortunately so I can't comment of the actual temperature or wind at that time. The hikers wrote that the wind was blowing strong , like an aircraft at take off or something similar.
I'm not sure about the comments regarding berries still on bushes that is used as evidence of no hurricane etc. I think along the lines of wind blowing snow off the slopes to the west and this blown snow building up on the protected slope above the tent.
My interpretation of a snow slab is not a newly formed slab but layers of snow with different consistency. I am not an expert obviously, so I could be completely wrong. It's when cutting through these layers that potentially makes a slide of snow possible, especially if the slope above the trench has been loaded or getting loaded by more snow or wind.
They mention that raised foot prints are an indication of wind slabs though and recent snow?
I'm not sure how accurate any of the temperature and wind speed data is. Maybe someone else will comment, I would be happy to eliminate any theory. One less!
-
Will come back to this later. Now I go to bed....ok.on again..There are not contradictions between "experts" about the weather conditions, meaning wind and temperature. You must read carefully the simulations from St. Petersburg, who had all data from weatherstations in this area.
https://dyatlovpass.com/investigation-materials-2?rbid=18461
The only contradiction to the Simulation from Petersburg is from the snow dept. This section clearify the contradition in details :
"A participant in the search for the Dyatlov group, Vladislav Karelin, analyzed the expert's calculations and did not agree with them.
- I was at the pass from February 27 to March 9, 1959, - Vladislav Georgievich recalls. - And I didn't see any signs of an avalanche. In addition, the tent was not on the eastern slope of Kholat Syakhl, but on the slope of the northeastern spur of this mountain range. The expert calculated the distribution of the height of the snow cover over the tent, using the pattern she obtained on the slopes of the Aibga ridge in the Caucasus. But the conditions of the Caucasian relief are fundamentally different from the altitude characteristics of the Ural Mountains. The slopes and peaks in the Caucasus are steep and rocky, with a well pronounced prominence, and in the Urals there are smooth outlines of peaks with a small difference in heights on the slopes. These differences cast doubt on the results of the expert's calculations. In addition, my observations made during the search clearly contradict the calculated data of the expert. According to Galina Pigoltsina, the depth of the snow near the tent was 150 cm. But during my searches in February-March 1959, I repeatedly stuck a metal probe into the snow, which went deep near the tent in no way more than 80-100 cm. According to the expert's calculations, the depth of the snow on the northeastern spur of Mount Kholat Syakhl in 1959 was 140 cm. But I, together with the head of search operation Evgeniy Maslennikov, climbed the northeastern spur. And there I saw stones, slightly powdered with snow. Therefore, I have great doubts about the calculations and conclusions made by the expert.
"The avalanche could have happened with a high degree of probability," the expert concluded. But it is obvious that the possibility of an avalanche is not evidence of its actual occurance. In addition, the expert did not give any real and specific signs of an avalanche. Therefore, it is not yet possible to speak of the avalanche version as the only possible cause of the tragedy."
--
Simulation of temperature and wind typically yields excellent results. However, when it comes to simulating snow thickness, credibility diminishes. Analysis of snow thickness and its significance regarding the accident cannot be conducted objectively without a precise terrain model of the scene. Only then can all assumptions be incorporated and the interaction between various factors studied and presented in a clear and understandable manner. That's why I miss having a terrain model that can be used for this purpose.
-
I apologize in the first instance gunmat if I come across pedantic or challenging, I only wish to clarify my own ignorance.
It is fine for a participant to disagree, you name Vladislav Karelin, we must remember that it is three weeks after the incident.
I would argue that the depth of snow goes up and down every year and probably daily depending on snow fall and wind blown snow.
To try and make my point on two examples, when the raised footprints were formed, the snow must have been deeper than the surface of the raised foot print. It would seem the wind blows away the softer snow, perhaps aided by snow crystals in a type of sand blasting.
Like wise Rustem was found under 600mm of snow, he had been covered with snow from where he fell.
This indicates to me that the depth of snow changes. It comes and goes. Like wise, if we can trust the photo that we might assume is the hikers pitching the tent on the last night, we can see there's a bit of depth to the trench that they dig.
Avalanches were filmed on the slope of 1079 , closer to above boot rock I believe, any signs of this avalanche were gone within an hour if I remember correctly. But I think it was a more traditional type avalanche.
I would suggest that any snow slip or slide would probably have been eroded after 3 weeks. Regarding the tent location.
So calculations based on terrain may give an indication of potential avalanches but they can't accommodate indavidual weather patterns through a season that lay different layers of snow , or a night of snowing with wind whilst humans have made a 5 meter cut over a meter deep into a snow bank.
For me, a giant/large avalanche is not what's being argued, it's could there be enough build up of snow to fall on the tent.
As I have said before, we have these raised footprints, these raised foot prints happen under certain conditions and it suggest fresh snow. Someone made these fresh footprints in the snow.
For me, these things tie together with little mystery.
Someone saying there was no signs of an avalanche and the snow was only 90cm deep and turned up 3 weeks after the event is no more an expert than anyone else.
If the searcher's arrived in July, all the searcher's would say that an an avalanche was impossible as there is no snow at all???
I don't think a snow collapse of some sort can be ruled out .
-
And just to muddy the waters, any avalanche theory puts some or all of the hikers inside the tent. But even that isn't a given.
-
Nothing is a given in this mystery, it's extremely difficult to investigate it from a neutral perspective without finding oneself being influenced from other sources.
So many experts are used to contradict other experts and their hypothesis . The amount of social videos that talk nonsense and show fake photos etc doesn't help. It's all got extremely muddy.
I don't think there's been any new finds or developments since our teddy's tinned food and tree with matching growth rings showing the tree fell in 1958--1959.
-
You are absolutely right Ziljoe. Plausibility is not truth, but plausibility supported by facts gets closer. For me, the more mundane explanation of slab slide, poor visibility and steady physical impairment explains the "how" of it and the details are interesting. Ultimately though the "why" is the result of an internal decision making process. In this tragedy, it is undocumented. So we loop back to plausibility. You are right about Teddy's finds. It is encouraging.
-
The avalanche probes were used at the ravine, not the tent, and I don’t have a problem with something like that happening there. Maybe they fell in and dislodged a whole bunch of snow and it fell on them. Any number of things could haven fallen on them in the forest, or that they could have fallen into. Now, can I say with 100% certainty that an avalanche did not happen at the tent? No. But I think Dr. Borzenkov’s proves that it would be a very unusual event. Plus, G & P are being very disingenuous in misrepresenting the site where avalanches occur as being a lot closer to the tent area than it really is and not explaining that it is already known as a place where avalanches happen. It’s not a new discovery, which is what they represent it as. So what do we have as evidence: a study of two people who are willing to stretch the truth to make their theory sound better; a government that’s probably sick and tired of the whole subject and realizes that it’s not going to go away if they can’t provide an definite answer; a photo that was supposedly taken at 5:30 the evening of the avalanche, which I do not believe for one second that they could tell what time it was in a black and white photo on a cloudy day with no shadows, and the snow on a tent that had already been messed with and had stood out there for three weeks, with snow blowing all over the place. An extraordinary happening requires extraordinary evidence. And an avalanche happening on that slope would be extraordinary. The evidence, unfortunately, is not. So I don’t find it at all unreasonable to be highly skeptical of the theory.
Furthermore that other avalanche theory in that link has the avalanche hitting the entrance of the tent, with Zolotaryov being one of the ones being injured because he was sleeping at the entrance. The official avalanche theory rules that out, because the entrance was not collapsed, which it surely would have been had an avalanche rolled over it.
-
I think there's several interpretations of the avalanche. So when we talk about an avalanche, we must decide what's being said.
I could dig a hole in a snow drift, if it collapsed on me....is it an avalanche? No... But it would make me move as I wouldn't just lie under the snow.
I think there's lots of confusion regarding "all" our interpretation.
-
We should consider that for all intents and purposes, those who put time, energy and expertise into solving the mystery are not trolls. I always say, " follow the money". If someone stands to cash in from the tragedy, that is suspicious. It is suspicious because of selectivity of the evidence put forward.
I also contend that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Everything about this incident can be put down to weather. There is nothing to indicate it was not. Weather drove them out, Weather trapped them in the woods. Weather froze them returning.That's Occam's Razor. However, weather is not going to sell books.
Avalanches are large scale events. Slab slips and snow bank collapses are not. They are as different as a windy day and a hurricane.
When the forum inquiry started, it is a perfect snapshot of the times. Spacemen, Snowman, falling objects from space, including rocketry, military run amok. These are all 50's and 60's cultural tropes! If the forum began in recent past, we would expect pandemic diseases, ebola type mystery virus, psychological programming as probable causes.
-
I definitely believe that the answer is somehow probably weather or nature related. I certainly consider a slab avalanche to be much more likely than murder, but it would still be an unusual occurrence that would require the hikers to have created the conditions that caused it. They even state that and show that photograph, which as far as I’m concerned, shows so little that I do not know how they can tell they’re even setting up the tent and not digging the labaz. I can accept they’re setting up the tent. But it certainly doesn’t prove that they created a slab that came down on them. Furthermore, I’m not even sure if G & P did any field work, other than go out and take a picture of a site two miles away from the tent to prove that a slab avalanche was possible at the tent. Also, G & P evidently, didn’t realize there was a difference between slab avalanches and regular ones, because they took a picture of a site where they can happen naturally to compare to one where the only time in recorded history one happened, ostensibly being February 1/2, 1959, it was due to human intervention. I know that Dr. Borzenkov did do field work, though. And computer models are great. But they don’t take the place of fieldwork. You can make anything happen on a computer if you put the right parameters in. They should match what exists in the real world, though, and the only way you’re going to confirm that is to compare them to the actual scene you’re trying to set up. In addition, they don’t even release the raw data, so other people can run their own models and confirm it. Why? What are they afraid of people finding out?
I don’t having a problem with people endorsing a theory. But the evidence in this case is just too contaminated and too fragmentary to really say that this definitely happened or that definitely happened. It’s even worse because we don’t even know what clues belong. Did the hikers create the footprints or was it the searchers? What did the tent really look like before it was messed with? Could Luda have really walked away with one of her ribs piercing her heart or is that just a medical aberration that happened once or twice? And I really feel like that no matter how they feel about the theory they should at least acknowledge the weaknesses in it. That they try to prop it up and say that the case is solved is the biggest thing that makes me suspicious of it.
-
Making a theory evidenced by forum data is the de facto method of participation. Explorers like Teddy, contribute materially to the forum through actual research. However, the old saw " the pen is mightier than the sword" is certainly true in our situation. We lean on those first hand accounts in the diaries and mourn what the diaries don't say.
When you think about it, they were pretty good at keeping records, so this unknown compelling force interfered with what should have been a spontaneous entry in any diary.
-
From an interview with rescuer Karelin in 2020 (in movie with Teddy and Vietnamka):
He arrived on February 27 at the Dyatlos pass.
[–] 60 years have passed. Are you still wondering what happened there?
[KARELIN:] 61 years have already passed. But the interest does not fade. The state is obliged to give an answer to relatives. The fact that some hypotheses are offered to us makes us smile. Especially from various prosecutors who tell us: “Yes, it’s an avalanche!” Even before this hike, I was caught in an avalanche in winter in Altai. I knew what an avalanche was. I knew what traces there would be from the avalanche. I flew with the first helicopter on February 27 to the place of death. There are absolutely no traces of an avalanche there. No traces!
(https://i.ibb.co/DDstDP6/karelin-2020.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Из интервью с поисковиком Карелиным в 2020 году (он с 27 февраля был на перевале):
[–] Прошло 60 лет. Вам до сих пор интересно, что там произошло?
[КАРЕЛИН:] Прошёл уже 61 год. А интерес не угасает. Государство обязано дать ответ родственникам. То, что нам предлагают какие-то гипотезы, они вызывают у нас усмешку. Особенно от различных прокурорских деятелей, которые нам говорят: «Да это лавина!» Вот ещё до этого похода я зимой на Алтае попадал в лавину. Я знал, что такое лавина. Я знал, какие следы будут от лавины. Я с первым вертолётом прилетел 27 февраля на место гибели. Никаких следов лавины там совершенно нет. Никаких следов!
-
There would be little or no evidence of an avalanche after 3 weeks. I believe avalanches at 1079 , 5-700 meters along from the tent have been filmed but natural and disappeared quickly.
The variables on what is understood to be an avalanche vary considerably. I don't think the injuries were caused at the tent , even by a snow slip or slide . However I think there's a possibility of them leaving the tent because of some sort of small snow collapse/ slap slide.
Even for those of us who believe in a snow slab , I think most of , if not all are arguing an avalanche. There is a difference. The difference is that the tent collapsed and those inside divided to exit using a knife, upon exiting , the decision was made to leave the slope and head to the woods. It is at the woods that injuries possibly occurred.
-
I will comment on this, surely, in full extent. When I get the time.Seems nobody here have a real understanding of avalanche. Be my guest when I comment on this. The lecture will be gratis. What G&P has published is two publications, talking about very old knowledge about avalanche, as if it was a "new Scientific" theory. The main part of their theory is something I learnee very well 30 years ago when I was working with a construction to protect housing areas against avalanches. It is not science, but very old knowledge based on observations, not on fancy mathematic equations. The only new in their publications is a mathematic argument claiming an avalanche could be released. But even the mathematic arguments are operated with variables that are unstable.So both their publications are for educational purposes, nothing else. They have nothing to do with the happening in 1959. Stay tuned, atleast for 14 days, I have other things to do.
-
It sounds extremely strange to me to believe in a theory because there’s little to no proof it happened three weeks after it happened, especially because you would find the same exact thing if an avalanche didn’t happen. The avalanche theory benefits from a hallmark of conspiracy theories. It’s impossible to prove a negative. So what they’re doing is a strawman’s argument. Short and succinctly, it’s: “You can’t prove it didn’t happen. Therefore, it did.”
Regarding their argument, though, they are using the general topography of the area, the weather, and the snow accumulation to argue a very localized event, whereupon the stepped geography that they highlight in their study and the nature of the type of avalanche that it was, indicates that characteristics in the immediate vicinity of any spot can have differing probabilities of a possible avalanche (or whatever you want to call it), because we’re not talking about traditional avalanches and it isn’t the Alps. The slope is still not steep enough and the snow accumulation not great enough that you can be looking for causes of an avalanche much farther away from where it happened. If that was the case, then there would definitely be more evidence of an avalanche three weeks after it happened.
They finally do broach the specifics in their rebuttal by stating that their theory is not the final word because the slab would have been softer, the slope not as steep, it was not undercut from below, and the trigger was different. But then they end it by saying that the area is avalanche prone. Except, of course, that nobody was arguing about the general area, and their remarks about the specific vicinity are extremely important and possibly very detrimental to their theory, considering it’s already skating along the edge of barely possible.
-
I have read your comment and find it serious and with common sense. First i wanted to stay away from this site due to easter, but your writings inspired me to go all in. your comments are sustainable and honest and therefore deserve an answer. Will sit down and write my answer in a few hours. Stay tuned. I am now ready to post my writings under a new Topic Named "Gone with the wind".
-
Would a secondary avalanche be likely up there? If not then the hikers might reasonably feel that the danger had passed and dig out their tent and spend the night there, a far more survivable choice than the alternative.
For them to abandon their tent I think it more likely a slab slip, and the risk of a further one sliding down with higher velocity would make remaining there high risk.
But a slab slip should leave large chunks of snow crust inside the tent. The pressure of this slippage pressing against the tent's uphill side would tear it apart and allow this inside, and yet that side was undamaged and there was even a coat stuffed into a large hole.
It would deform the shape and positioning of the tent and do rather more damage than snap one upright bamboo pole.
If it is said to be capable of flailing chests then it would not spare fragile watch crystals, cameras, binoculars, spectacles or the pressed steel stove.
And the void left above the tent by this slippage, a great scar in the snow crust, would take some filling, and to do so with freshly fallen and windblown snow, all while leaving footprints uncovered, and fool investigators and mountain men when standing on this air-laded snow versus the surrounding crust and escape all photographic detection seems highly improbable.
The purveyors of this theory are like two sprinters who near the finish line in what they think is a simple 100m sprint, "we got this!" they exclaim as they punch the air in victory, but they are competing in an 800m hurdle race, and no single runner, or theory, manages to clear every single hurdle and cross the finish line.
And it's unlikely any ever will, not unless a third party accidentally or deliberately killed the hikers and an authenticated deathbed confession emerged or some State declassification of damning documents occurred.
So I don't personally think anything can be gained from arguing the science of whether the event was possible, it's more a question of all the missing physical evidence in an aftermath.
I could suggest, as example, that a helicopter might have crashed on the mountain, and it injured the hikers and damaged the tent, and some cover-up took place. At face value it's plausible, it probably won't be without precedence, but minus any surface evidence it would remain as fanciful as this theory.
Show me a tent damaged on the uphill force-resisting side, show me damage inside the tent, show me snow crust in there, show me photographic evidence of a depression in the snow surface above the tent and matching ob's from witnesses and I'd be sold.
But there was none of this. Nada.
-
Back to the same topic: Avalanches.
First, some introductory remarks. G&P's avalanche theory was touted as Breaking New Science. This is nonsense. Their theory consisted of very old knowledge about avalanches, spiced up with a mathematical argumentation claiming that one avalanche could have occurred.
--
Their "theory" about snow layering, with a weak layer between two solid layers, is not “new science” but established old knowledge and common sense, based on observations. I received a thorough introduction to this knowledge while working on avalanche protection outside my hometown more than 30 years ago. Their mathematical argumentation is based on what I would call unstable variables. Snow does not have a specific friction angle, and therefore does not have a specific friction coefficient. The friction angle depends on the consistency and temperature of the snow, and the age of the snow after falling, and by transport along the surface by wind.
--
I base my argumentation on my own practical experience from engineering work with avalanche protection, and on open publications from the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). First, some more background information. In the region of Norway where I come from, there are between 8,000 and 10,000 large and small avalanches each year. In the last 20 years, 46 people have died in avalanches there. On average, 2 to 3 people die each year in avalanches. Many of these avalanches are documented and measured. Therefore, NGI has a completely unique base of experience to draw on when investigating avalanche danger. Those who perish are tourists from France, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, to name a few. In two cases, locals have been caught in avalanches and survived, and they were young people practicing risk sports on the snow-covered mountainsides. People living in this region have avalanche danger as part of their collective consciousness. If you were to show pictures from the Dyatlov Pass to some of those living in this region and claim that the Dyatlov group was killed by an avalanche, they would ask you what you've been smoking.
--
The steepness of the slope is the main thing we look at to see if there might be an avalanche. Some people say, "Sure, but there are other things involved in an avalanche." To that, I say, "Come join our talk." It's the steepness of the slope that matters for all kinds of avalanches. Pressure, pulling, and sideways forces happen because of the slope angle, and is only some spice on top of the established knowledge. When the snow moves down the slope super slow, the tension at the upper part gets big enough and the avalanche starts. Yep, when the slope is at a certain angle, the snow moves really slowly downhill. That's what makes those forces happen. If the pressure from below isn't strong enough to balance the tension at the upper part, the avalanche starts.
-
A loose (weak) layer of snow forms during weather changes. For instance, it might be cold with strong winds for a while, then the wind dies down and snow falls to a certain extent. After that, the wind picks up again, and the fresh layer of snow gets covered with snow that has blown from afar and has a higher density. If the top layer becomes thick and heavy enough, the weak layer may collapse, triggering an avalanche. Another, more dangerous weak layer can form without significant weather changes but requires continuous severe cold with little wind. This layer consists of frost rime on top of the snowpack and can be more than 1 cm thick. The layer is known as facet crystals stacked on top of each other, resembling small shot glasses. If new snow built up on top and the weight becomes significant enough, these crystals shatter, acting like a ball bearing layer for the top layer to slide out. Such a weak layer is persistent and very difficult to identify without digging in the snow, unlike a layer of loose snow, which consolidates after a certain time. I find it quite surprising that G&P are putting all their efforts into supporting their theory with a thick layer of loose snow covered by a heavier, harder top layer, considering the temperatures in the Ural region during January and February. In the end, all these specific assumptions are built into the statistics for terrain slopes that trigger avalanches. So the dangerous slopes cover all kind of preconditions.
--
Back to the slope angle of the top layer. According to the data I have, the critical threshold for triggering avalanches is approximately 25 degrees. At 25 degrees, about 1% of all avalanches are triggered. Using the beta distribution on the figures I have, the probability is reduced to 1 per mil at a slope angle of 23 degrees. At a slope angle of 20 degrees, the statistical probability is virtually zero. (Probability is a number between 0 and 1, but in everyday language, we talk about 0 to 100%.)
-
However, this isn't really the most interesting part. What should be of interest is that avalanches on slopes less than 30 degrees require very specific conditions. It's not useful to search for a slope angle between 20 and 30 degrees to determine if an avalanche can release. For an avalanche to release at 20 to 25 degrees, the slope must converge to a steeper incline below. Only then does the tension at 20-25 degrees become significant. On a mountainside where the incline doesn't converge but remains consistently less than 18 degrees, no avalanche releases, regardless of weak layers, and regardless of whether someone has dug a pit in the snow. The slope where the tent was pitched is between 15 and 16 degrees. No avalanche runs there. There were no avalanche. The authentic picture from the scene proves it. If an avalanche had hit the tent, it would have been completely flattened. Neither ski poles nor skis, used as anchors for the tent guy ropes, would have remained standing. The picture tells everything. Igor Dyatlov and his friends' tent was not hit by an avalanche.
--
G&P have presented their theory in two publications. In their first publication, they state that they obtained digital terrain data from multiple sources. The issue with their references is that digital terrain data with elevation references from this area is only available from the NASA product SRTM3. Towards the end of my comment, I will thoroughly revisit this and other points I have mentioned here. In their second publication, they claim to have laser scanned the area with a resolution of 9 cm. I have requested their point cloud, which forms the basis of their model, without success. If one claims science, it is common courtesy in academia to release all models used in an analysis so that others can test the hypotheses independently. The point cloud G&P claim to have used should be made available to this forum for further study immediately. The points must be located in UTM zone 41. (As Cartesian coordinates)
--
So, let's take a slightly deeper dive into G&P's theory. They argue that the slope above the tent was much steeper than 20 degrees, implicitly suggesting that an avalanche could have been triggered. However, they then abandon this line of reasoning and claim that a layer of snow built up over the tent, slid off, and fell down, trapping the Dyatlov group beneath the canvas. Willing minds support this and add that the Dyatlov group cut their way out of the tent to escape. Such argumentative techniques do not belong in academia. But let's take them at their words.
They have an illustration showing a wind blowing across the tent and leaving snow above it. This does not align well with weather observations. The tent was oriented in a north-south direction, and the wind came from the northwest. The wind would have hit the side wall/roof of the tent at an angle between 35 and 75 degrees. This can be assumed even if the orientation of the tent is not precisely specified and even if the wind passing over the shoulder above may have veered more to the east. The canvas would have deflected the wind, creating a wind flux along the tent, not across it. The illustration they used is only credible if there is a wind blowing at an ideal angle to the tent, with ideal wind speed, for very many hours. The wind speed was about 8-10 meters per second. The illustration also shows an extremely thick "weak layer." Where did it come from, and when was it formed under the weather conditions prevailing for several days before the disaster?
--
It is impossible that a small avalanche could have caused the injuries the victims had. A larger avalanche would have swept away everything in its path. So, what is the purpose of G&P's theory? It does not prove that a small avalanche occurred, nor does it prove with high enough confidence that an avalanche could occur. The risk of avalanches increases with weather changes from colder to warmer conditions, combined with strong winds, regardless of the layering of the snow on the mountainside. When temperatures rise sharply from -5 to -10 degrees Celsius or colder and approach 0 degrees Celsius and above, alarm bells ring for those living in avalanche-prone areas. The opposite occurred in Dyatlov Pass in February 1959. Temperatures dropped significantly, reaching as low as -30 degrees Celsius.
The G&P theory should be removed from the table and filed under the title " For educational purposes.”
--
In their first publication, G&P stated that they had downloaded terrain data, citing several sources. However, only the NASA product SRTM3 is available from this source. I have downloaded data from there and built a terrain model. It is too coarse to definitively characterize the terrain but can serve as an illustration. The image "SLOPE" depicts the slope of the terrain in the area. Approximately 180 meters south of the tent, the terrain slope can reach up to 30 degrees at a few points, which could be shown in a finer mesh model. Above the tent, the slope can reach up to 25-26 degrees, but if an avalanche were to occur there, it would have a reach that would sweep away anything protruding from the snow and flatten the tent.
The images mod1 to mod3 show the model from different angles. Image mod5 is created after the coarse model is broken down into squares of 25 cm, and all dimensions of the tent are incorporated into the model. Nothing is drawn by hand. With a fine mesh model, one would be able to create a completely realistic depiction of the situation, both before and after the collapse of the tent.
The images "standard" and "lag" illustrate the forces at play in an avalanche.
The image STREKK shows the stetch in the toplayer right before avalanche.
--
Regarding G&P's theory, I have two more things to say. A theory claiming to be based on science must be both valid and reliable, and it must be supported by observations. Secondly, all models used in the study must be open to scrutiny by others, so they can be tested by independent individuals. For it to be considered scientific, the calculation model itself must be thoroughly explained, and the detailed terrain model they claim as a basis must be released. Without this happening, their publications cannot be regarded as serious.
(https://i.ibb.co/yP58ntM/6-Slope.png) (https://ibb.co/kB0hgjr)
(https://i.ibb.co/W59XhQQ/LAG.png) (https://ibb.co/JtLT1NN)
(https://i.ibb.co/mD69vRQ/MOD1.png) (https://ibb.co/smyK5gL)
(https://i.ibb.co/C13nc8F/MOD2.png) (https://ibb.co/7YdGfCF)
(https://i.ibb.co/7yRC1r8/mod3.png) (https://ibb.co/0JF2GY8)
(https://i.ibb.co/zFRnG8p/mod5.png) (https://ibb.co/pQz0JWc)
(https://i.ibb.co/BNLf9xZ/RIMLAG.png) (https://ibb.co/gVyrxpT)
(https://i.ibb.co/tYnCQ5L/STANDARD.png) (https://ibb.co/DwmKznr)
(https://i.ibb.co/VYfzcJR/STREKK.png) (https://ibb.co/B20Q5cb)
-
A secondary avalanche would be next to impossible. Even people who believe the theory say that. It’s not a place where avalanches occur naturally. The slope is too shallow and the fierce winds keep the snow from accumulating. Unfortunately, though, sometimes humans can inadvertently trigger an avalanche in areas where they would not have occurred otherwise, which is what some people think happened that night. I obviously don’t agree, but setting that aside for the sake of argument, once the slab fell on them, there would have been no other snow for a second avalanche to draw from. The snow that did fall on them came from them digging into the snow to set up the tent. Now, I don’t know that they would have necessarily known that. They still could have thought another avalanche was possible and fled down the slope to the forest. But I’m always left wondering with this theory how long would they have sat there in freezing cold temperatures and severely underdressed while nothing else happened.
-
If the hikers found a natural hillock on the mountain side and if they dug down on the leeward side in order to level their tent, then there would be a situation where blowing snow could accumulate on the crest of the hillock. Perhaps the buildup of wind driven snow on the hillock and the excavation of snow to level the tent is all that is necessary for a collapse onto the tent.
The slab slip would be sufficient to cause them to evacuate the tent. The uncertainty of whether another larger snow slide would follow might be sufficient reason to leave the tent until morning opting for the relative safety of the forest below.
-
Well,done!
-
I do not believe they would have sat out there for that long, especially if they had injured companions or something else went catastrophically wrong, as must have happened if the injuries didn’t come from the avalanche that started it all. And as I stated previously, proving that an avalanche wouldn’t have left many traces three weeks after it happened still leaves you with little evidence that it happened. There are also weapons that could have been tested that leave no mark on the environment. The government could have killed everyone and staged the scene. You could say these are highly improbable events and there are elements that argue against them. And to that I would agree. But the same thing is true of an avalanche on that slope at that particular spot. The investigation was right in 1959 to leave it at an unknown compelling force, an unsatisfactory answer, I admit, but the only one that was possible due to the lack of evidence. To embrace a theory based on a computer model that showed something wasn’t impossible in certain areas where a slope was not as steep as 30 degrees, but not at that particular place, with little evidence to support it and having to tiptoe around the evidence that refuted it (like saying that the avalanche missed the entrance, with no evidence to support that, except that an avalanche would have flattened the entrance, which they know didn’t happen) is as bad as Ivanov stating that a fireball attacked Semyon, Luda, and Nicolai, because none of the burned trees were in a concentric circle and they were the only ones injured. That is not evidence of that happening. And it doesn’t matter how the evidence is lost; whether it’s covered up, trampled all over, or through natural processes. All that matters is the evidence is lost and you cannot base any theories on it, because you don’t have any evidence to indicate that such occurred.
Now,there is a phenomenon known as Occam’s Razor to use in such situations, which is largely the reason why the original investigation was comfortable in saying it was an unknown compelling force rather than murder or military testing, as those would be far less likely in such an environment and would require far more of an explanation regarding where the evidence went, motive, and all that. Nature isn’t really as complicated as human beings. But it is powerful and able to overcome even the strongest, most experienced, and most prepared humans. But when it comes to nature or weather related causes, an avalanche certainly does not follow Occam’s Razor when you need computer models, complicated formulas, and pictures to even suggest such a thing is possible, and with none of that applied to the case at hand. Nothing about that indicates that the newer investigation got any closer to solving the Dyatlov Pass mystery than an unknown compelling force. That was and should continue to be the official theory, and the fact that they were willing to compromise the fidelity of their investigation based on such evidence indicates an ulterior motive to me, which puts the theory they are backing into serious questions, as well as any other information they pass on.
-
"The tent of Dyatlov and his friends was not hit by an avalanche. A finely-tuned data model would provide even more precise information from the scene. Up until now, people are arguing without having a clear picture of this terrain, as if words alone are sufficient to progress in the investigation. Avalanche deposits do not disappear within a couple of weeks. Next, I want to draw attention to the short distance the group traveled on February 1, 1959. It's very peculiar that this hasn't attracted more attention."
-
It may be too simplistic to look at an avalanche( read slab slide) in isolation. They were in crazy cold, windy, perhaps foggy weather with horizontally blowing snow. The standard canon is they cut their way out, but consider that if the tears originated spontaneously, there would be no time to sew anything up. The fabric would be like whips. The point being that if it were a single cause, they could attend to it, but there is only so much we can control or adapt to in the wild. Its Darwinism out there, " things change, the strong survive". Nature makes no value judgements.
-
Myths have long lives.."They cut themself out of the tent"...