May 27, 2022, 11:43:46 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Avalanche Theory for Dyatlov Pass Incident is Bolstered by New Study  (Read 6130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 09, 2021, 12:49:42 PM
Reply #30
Offline

WinterLeia


The point of my post was that the study does not prove anything other than under a certain set of circumstance an avalanche can cause non-lethal thoracic damage to a human being. That is all it proves. And the fact that the experts are willing to accept such a theory without any proof that it is tied in anyway to this particular tragedy is very concerning. It hints, at best, that they don’t particularly care, and at worst, that they’re covering something up. Honestly, the strong wind theory seems more plausible to me, though I’m not convinced that happened either.

This area is not prone to avalanches, and the injuries they are talking about are not ones that avalanche victims typically suffer from. When people start talking about more than one avalanche, it becomes even more ridiculous, as one would be out of the ordinary. And the thoracic injuries in the study relied on the human body being caught between two very hard, packed surfaces, such as the tent floor that the hikers reinforced with skis. It wasn’t just based on a person sitting or reclining on a snow-covered ground. In a snow den, especially with bare hands or even mittened hands, they would never be able to pack the ground that hard, unless it was already hard, packed snow. If that were the case, though, then they wouldn’t have even be able to dig out the snow den without tools to do it, tools which they did not have.

Also, Kolevatov was not badly injured. He didn’t even die of his wounds. The medical examiner said he believed the injuries to his head happened after death and that he probably died of low temperature. Why wouldn’t he have suffocated long before he died of the cold if he was in a collapsed snow den? Why wouldn’t he have dug himself and the other three out?

And then there’s where the bodies were carried, ostensibly by water alone. Yet, they still found discarded clothing in the den. Not only that, but the way the bodes of the three males were found, they offered the most resistance to the water flow, being horizontal to the flow rather than vertical, like Luda. And, the flow was still able to pick them up and carry them downstream, but not the clothing spread on the den floor?

They tried this theory back in 1959, and it didn’t hold. The fact that they keep circling back to it indicates a need to believe this or accept it is based on something other than the facts in the case. None of the people that saw the tent, many of them hikers themselves, thought that the snow covering was excessive for the time it was supposedly out there abandoned. The entrance wasn’t even blocked by snow, and there’s evidence that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent and thus not in a position where they could have suffered the injuries they did. So, now we’re just going to relocate it to the ravine? I don’t have a problem with it being one of the theories on the table. But when it’s the one that investigators push at every turn despite very real problems with it, that’s when it starts getting suspicious.
 

September 10, 2021, 12:34:02 PM
Reply #31
Offline

Ziljoe


I agree with your observations winterleia.

Initially I thought an avalanche at the tent location was the most likely cause. I don't think that's the case anymore. There seems to be some confusion over the den, clothes found , distance to the ravine 4 etc.

The ravine 4 injuries are explained well by Igor b. I am happy with his observations and reasoning. If it was a collapse of a snow bridge/cave they wouldn't be able to dig there way out, nor could anyone that was standing outside of the collapse dig them out. The nature of the snow would be like concrete. Maybe some of the others tried but had to give up.

If you Google (tuckerman snow arch collapse) it might help to give an example of the concept. This is obviously a different country and larger ice bridge, later in the season but a tourist was injured and couldn't dig themselves out and his injuries were serious. It's a large snow bridge but it's also a lager river.

It is plausible....but has nothing to do with an avalanche or the cause of exiting the tent.
 

September 10, 2021, 04:57:18 PM
Reply #32
Offline

Squatch


And then there’s where the bodies were carried, ostensibly by water alone. Yet, they still found discarded clothing in the den. Not only that, but the way the bodes of the three males were found, they offered the most resistance to the water flow, being horizontal to the flow rather than vertical, like Luda. And, the flow was still able to pick them up and carry them downstream, but not the clothing spread on the den floor?

They tried this theory back in 1959, and it didn’t hold. The fact that they keep circling back to it indicates a need to believe this or accept it is based on something other than the facts in the case. None of the people that saw the tent, many of them hikers themselves, thought that the snow covering was excessive for the time it was supposedly out there abandoned. The entrance wasn’t even blocked by snow, and there’s evidence that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent and thus not in a position where they could have suffered the injuries they did. So, now we’re just going to relocate it to the ravine? I don’t have a problem with it being one of the theories on the table. But when it’s the one that investigators push at every turn despite very real problems with it, that’s when it starts getting suspicious.

I really love this forum because the people who post here are deep thinkers and challenge those with different ideas about what happened. This is good because it helps the truth to emerge.

I do not think the bodies in the ravine were carried by water. In my opinion, moving snow can account for both the injuries to the four hikers and the movement of their bodies through the ravine.

The snow covering on the tent may have been excessive before the rescuers arrived 3.5 weeks later. I do not feel we can look at the scene of the tragedy 3.5 weeks later and assume that was what it looked like when the tragedy occurred. Or make assumptions about how much snow could have blown away. We don't know enough about the weather conditions on the night of the incident and the days/weeks that followed.

If you look at the snow on the tent, it appears very jumbled up. It does not look like snow that accumulates due to natural snowfall. I do believe that Zolotaryov and Nicolas were outside the tent when some kind of snow collapse happened. But why do you assume their injuries happened at the tent? Why not in the ravine?

Let's look at this from a wider perspective and not get caught up in the details. How likely is it that the hikers -- on the side of a mountain in bad weather in a remote location -- encountered Soviet soldiers, UFOs, Yetis or native peoples that night? Isn't it more likely that a natural event or events happened in extremely bad weather that panicked the hikers in the darkness? And made them act out of fear instead of rational thought? Sometimes people just have bad luck and nature does not take pity on those experiencing the bad luck.

I still think there was a partial avalanche at the tent that panicked the hikers, and another more deadly one in the ravine. The fact that three of the hikers tried to head back to the tent hints that their panic wore off and they finally had a better understanding of their situation.


 

September 10, 2021, 09:55:42 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Игорь Б.


The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 

September 15, 2021, 04:11:46 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss


                           Reply #15
..........................
This is an underhanded tactic from the science field that I have sadly seen too many times. They write extremely technical, usually formula-heavy articles that are extremely hard for a layman to read. I sometimes wonder how many people start to read the article, find themselves in a bewildering forest of technobabble where they can’t even tell what point the paragraph is trying to make, and finally give up and decide that the people must know what they’re talking about because they’re super smart, and they did all those experiments, and it’s based on a computer model. Computers are never wrong. Nobody ever seems to be suspicious that the people writing the article are counting on that, because their technical jargon, computer models, and pages of of math equation are hiding several major problems that can be spotted with good, old-fashioned common sense once the scientific and intellectual veneer is pushed aside.
......................................


Very good observation ! That is the example of the Gaume & Puzrin article, which is certainly correct and accurate, but is useless for explaining the main official documents and reports currently available on the DPI.


°°°°

                           Reply #24
No, the injuries are not what can be expected from an avalanche.

The damaging of rib cages and pointed crushing of  skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle are consistent with injuries we see when people are killed by skilled close combat specialists. An avalanche would unlikely crush skulls and rib cages without damaging the limbs. The fracture pattern on the skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle immediately strikes one as having the shape of a rifle butt, and the fact that Dubinina and Zolotaryov had damaged rib cages with no dislocations or fractures of the limbs makes it pretty safe to exclude the avalanche and snow slad theories. Kolevatov's crushed larynx also is far from what one would find if heavy snow had caused the damage, and I myself have learned the technique in jiu jitsu. I also have learned that a trained fighting specialist very easily can break the rib cage of victims with forceful elbow strikes, and this technique leads to major internal bleeding, shock and death.

It is interesting that Zolotaryov and Dubinina, but not the two others found at the same place, had crushed rib cages. A probable explanation is that since the group almost certainly was attacked by professional killers, these professionals were grouped in three and three. One group took Zolotaryov and Dubinina, while another expedited Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. Different methods were used, according to the situation and the resistance the hikers put up.
..........................

From the "HOW" part of the TOK theory:

A single group of three attackers, who are not trained in the subtleties of the art of jiu jitsu, but who are able to hit hard and coordinate their strikes in the darkness while trying to isolate each hiker.

No noisy firearms but blunt objects - big sticks wrapped in rags to silently stun.

 •  The free process, very much in use in the Gulag camps since before 1929, is to immobilise the victim by knocking him out and then simply let him die of cold, which can take a long time depending on the temperature.

 •  To push in the chests: use of the "trampoline principle" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampolining
A 100kg striker jumps 1 metre, feet together, onto Dubinina or Zolotaryov ---> 1000 joules
Rebound of the same striker at the same height ---> 1000 joules
So an impact of 2000 joules, spread over the width of the two feet of the attacker (20 - 25 centimetres), which is very sufficient

 •   To excise the eyes and the tongue: small knife or better still a solid small spoon whose edges have been made sharp with a grinding stone or a file.

TOK theory = Eduard Tumanov + Per Inge Oestmoen + Aleks Kandr =  murder or relentless Altercation on the pass

An unusual and short summary of TOK theory by Anatoliy Stepochkin who says he knows what happened on Dyatlov Pass.
https://dyatlovpass.com/dmitriy-borisov-2019-02-12

«...[/- in Vizhay the -\] Shamans [/- VIP sponsors worried and angry, hired -\] hunters ....[/-  mercenary attackers who -\] tracked them down. And in the middle of the night, when they fell asleep, the shamans [/- attackers -\] cut the tarp and launched some kind of dope inside. Hunters [/- attackers -\] surrounded the tent. And when the hikers jumped out, we killed them all. They were 9 or 10....»



°°°°

Igor B has the tremendous quality of proposing a complete and detailed explanation of the DPI.
To be able to judge Igor B theory correctly, you should read the interesting forum :

http://1723.ru/forums/index.php

Unfortunately, it is long to read because there are 110 pages of 20 posts which makes about 2200 posts !
It is entirely in Russian (except for the pictures) and it is very difficult for me (despite the translation software) because I do not know Russian.

 ••• Leaving the tent without the necessary equipment and suddenly making the air inside the tent unbreathable
===>   arrival of a wolverine

The wolverine is perhaps one of the least studied large carnivores in the world. Many people do not know that Wolverine has exactly the same chemical weapons as the skunk...»[/i]

See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_(weapon)


 ••• For the four of the Den

                           Reply #31
I agree with your observations winterleia.
......................
The ravine 4 injuries are explained well by Igor b. I am happy with his observations and reasoning. If it was a collapse of a snow bridge/cave they wouldn't be able to dig there way out, nor could anyone that was standing outside of the collapse dig them out. The nature of the snow would be like concrete. Maybe some of the others tried but had to give up.
................
It is plausible....
If the ravine 4 did use a naturally formed snow cave and it did collapse on top of them , there is a lot of evidence to explain their injuries. This includes broken ribs and fractures, the nature of the fractures , lack of frostbite compared to the other 5 along with other known differences in the autopsy.



 ••• For Kolgomorova, Dyatlov and Doroshenko's injuries, Krivonishenko's burns and crushing of skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle Igor B is more questionable and less convincing.

Perhaps we could try to consult Eduard Tumanov later  ?? .


 ••• I notice that the Igor B theory as well as the TOK theory are consolidated by the meteorological part of the "Lupos theory", i.e. the sudden arrival in the night of a snow storm  --->  wind = 35 m/s and temperature = - 50 °C.

    Dyatlov Pass Forum > Theories Discussion > Catabatic Wind - Acute Stress Reaction - Cold Air Drops
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.0
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=542.msg7927#msg7927

https://www.magentacloud.de/lnk/5PMYFi3t


Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.
 

February 15, 2022, 03:04:43 AM
Reply #35
Offline

Charles


They overlook the fact that the Tent was not damaged or moved.
Absolutely ! The tent was pitched perpendiculary to the slope and and to the axis of a possible avalanche or slab slide, like a downwind sail... and was not removed. And also, there were skis remaining vertically stuck in the snow.

And if an avalanche occurred, they were safe: once an avalanche has been triggered, the area is considered as safe... we trigger avalanche purposely to secure an area.

And even if we consider a very limited slide on a gentle slope, it was therefore of limited volume, mass, speed and energy: not enough to crush ribs and skulls.

And very difficult to consider the ones who had ribs and skull fractures walking 1,5 km without shoes in the snow, cold and night, to the cedar, then to the den. Once the avalanche occurred, they were at the safest location, and as the tent was still standing, no need to rush without taking the time to put on their shoes (the shoes were close to the gate whose pole was still standing).

So, the avalanche theory has its own internal contradictions: limited avalanche, limited damage... brutal avalanche, swept away tent...

PS : it would have been easier to experimentally assess the damage of a snow slide on a tent than to simulate by computer the damage on human body.
 

February 15, 2022, 08:12:07 AM
Reply #36
Offline

Manti



Absolutely ! The tent was pitched perpendiculary to the slope and and to the axis of a possible avalanche or slab slide, like a downwind sail... and was not removed. And also, there were skis remaining vertically stuck in the snow.

There were no skis remaining vertically in the snow. I agree, the tent wasn't moved. But the hikers put all their skis under the tent. The skis in the snow on the search photos have been put there by the searchers.
 

February 15, 2022, 08:38:49 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Ziljoe



Absolutely ! The tent was pitched perpendiculary to the slope and and to the axis of a possible avalanche or slab slide, like a downwind sail... and was not removed. And also, there were skis remaining vertically stuck in the snow.

There were no skis remaining vertically in the snow. I agree, the tent wasn't moved. But the hikers put all their skis under the tent. The skis in the snow on the search photos have been put there by the searchers.

This from the Dyatlovpaas site regarding the tent.

"The entrance of the tent was looking south. The north part was covered with 15-20 cm of snow. It was concluded from general appearance and density that it was not a result of an avalanche but blown by the wind. Near the tent, a pair of skis were sticking out from the snow (they couldn't remain like this if there was an avalanche)"

And,

"Official protocol report on the Tent from the Dyatlov group:
Camp site is located on the northeast slope of mountain 1079 (Kholat Syakhl, red) at the source of river Auspiya. Camp site is located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°. Camp site consists of a pad of flattened snow, on the bottom are stacked 8 pairs of skis (for tent support and insulation, red). Tent is stretched on poles and fixed with ropes, at the bottom of the tent 9 backpacks were discovered with various personal items, jackets, rain coats, 9 pairs of shoes. There were also found men's pants, and three pairs of boots, warm fur coats, socks, hat, ski caps, utensils, buckets, stove, ax, saw, blankets, food: biscuits in two bags, condensed milk, sugar, concentrates, notebooks, itinerary and many other small items and documents, camera and accessories to a camera."

That being said , I'm sure I read that it was reported that there was 9 pairs of skis under the tent by someone. I also understand that the labaz was marked with a ski , how did they carry extra skis? So much contradiction is frustrating.
 

February 15, 2022, 08:41:54 AM
Reply #38
Offline

Ziljoe


I mean the contradiction in the case files and wittness statements. It makes it difficult for all of us.
 

February 15, 2022, 11:45:16 AM
Reply #39
Offline

Charles


The skis in the snow on the search photos have been put there by the searchers.
I read somewhere these skis belonged to the hikers, thank you for having corrected me.

But it does not change the fact that the tent was not swept away. If they were serious, Gaume & Puzrin should have included this as a parameter of their simulation : slab slide breaking skulls and ribs and not sweeping the tent away.

Missing such a parameter let me think their enterprise was not completely honest... As there is a very common bias to use hard science explanation for disasters in order to avoid the pain of having to deal with shameful social explanations such as violence, war, rivalry, greed, etc. One thing is to honestly consider the facts and informations that science can provide, another thing is to look forward to a physical explanation as climate change, flood, avalanche... in the hope to avoid the finding of what the Greek called "stasis" - the irresistible dissension and internal violence leading to the collapse of a human group without any intervention from the outside... A phenomenon which was studied by french anthropologist René Girard who named it : "mimetic crisis" or "mimetic runaway". Besides, the statement "unknown compelling force" could perfectly describe this type of crisis.

If hard science is really "hard", it does not arbitrarily exclude a single parameter.

 
The following users thanked this post: Manti

March 15, 2022, 06:05:36 AM
Reply #40
Offline

Игорь Б.


Опровержение любого обрушения снега на палатку:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=65874
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=107249
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=108064

Любое обрушение снега на палатку опровергается отсутствием твёрдого, обледеневшего снега, который невозможно было бы копать деревянными лыжами и лыжными палками (видео):
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=113789
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286
 

March 15, 2022, 08:05:28 PM
Reply #41
Offline

GlennM


If nine people are in a tent which is compressed by even a modest amount of snow, the collapsed portion creates an immediate suffocation hazard. There need not be any additional injuries. Clearing the tent and keeping warm are the most important concerns. It would be better to evacuate the area, get a fire going and return later to patch up and reorganize the camp. Firewood was only found in the woods below. The nine hikers did the right thing by getting off the slope. They had no control of wind, temperature and lighting. These ,they misjudged. It may well have been that instead of following Igor's lead, they started to do things by majority rule, then individual determination. Cold dulls the senses and lack of warmth and food makes it worse.
 

March 16, 2022, 07:26:39 PM
Reply #42
Offline

Squatch


If nine people are in a tent which is compressed by even a modest amount of snow, the collapsed portion creates an immediate suffocation hazard. There need not be any additional injuries. Clearing the tent and keeping warm are the most important concerns. It would be better to evacuate the area, get a fire going and return later to patch up and reorganize the camp. Firewood was only found in the woods below. The nine hikers did the right thing by getting off the slope. They had no control of wind, temperature and lighting. These ,they misjudged. It may well have been that instead of following Igor's lead, they started to do things by majority rule, then individual determination. Cold dulls the senses and lack of warmth and food makes it worse.

I agree.

I have posted here before that I support some sort of avalanche theory when all nine hikers were in their tent. I thought some of the slits in the tent were meant for communication between hikers in the tent and two outside, but now I think differently.

I now think the simplest of all things happened. This view is not popular because of the emotions people have around nine youthful hikers dying a horrible death. It just doesn't seem fair, and it wasn't.

But the explanation that makes the most sense for me is:  There was no Yeti, no UFO, no Soviet military testing or anything else. The hikers were trying to pass the final test to become top level hikers. So they put themselves into a position that was potentially dangerous to prove this. That is why they took the time to document this in pictures and diaries. There were no iPhones or Internet back then (But imagine if there was... we would probably have enough evidence to solve this mystery!).

They did not anticipate that cutting into the mountainside's ice and snow would pose a danger. But in the night the weather got really bad with high winds and bad blizzard conditions. The slope where they were at was initially thought to be 15 degrees, far below the 30 degrees needed for an avalanche. But the location of the tent was more likely 28 degrees due to an error the first investigators made when recording the tent's location. Combine that with very high winds and blizzard conditions, and the cut mountainside for their tent gave way and heavy snow spilled onto the top of their tent. In a panic they cut their way out of it.

Because it was dark and very windy with blizzard conditions, they must have thought that a bigger avalanche was imminent. So they went down the mountain slope to the nearest tree and made a fire. Two of the hikers died from exposure. Three of the hikers decided to take their chances and go back to the tent in the hope that there had been no further avalanche, while four made a den in a ravine. But the den would not be enough to survive... they needed a fire or maybe they changed their minds and decided to follow the three going back to the tent. So they go out to get fuel for the fire or head back to the tent, and walk across an area near where they made the den not realizing that they are going over a steeper part of the ravine covered with snow which is hardened on the top. But the weight of all four of them collapses the top portion of the snow and they fall through a "snow cave" where there is not a lot of snow underneath where they are walking, possibly due to internal melting by the flowing river below. This accounts for the serious injuries to three of the four hikers. The least injured hiker is hugging one of the other hikers when this happens, probably in an effort to prevent him from falling through the breaking snow/ice cover they are walking on. The hiker he is on top of absorbs all the impact of the fall. But they all die from injury and/or hypothermia regardless.

This sequence of events makes sense to me. The UFO sighted by others in the region is coincidental. The "Yeti" photo is a prank photo taken by the hikers to be part of a joke newsletter they are working on. The radiation on two of the hikers is because the clothing was contaminated at a workplace that worked with radioactive material. The missing eyes and tongue on the hikers is because the place they landed on is a stronger flowing river in May when they are found and it is the result of decomposition by bacteria.

This is my final opinion on this tragic event. It makes sense to me. It satisfies Occam's razor.
 

March 31, 2022, 05:13:09 AM
Reply #43
Offline

Sunny


Theres not enough snow to create an avalanche in my opinion
« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 05:54:51 AM by Sunny »
 

April 07, 2022, 12:24:20 AM
Reply #44
Offline

Marchesk


It would be better to evacuate the area, get a fire going and return later to patch up and reorganize the camp. Firewood was only found in the woods below. The nine hikers did the right thing by getting off the slope.

The right thing would have been to stay at the tent. It didn't blow away or get swept down the mountain. The second best thing would have been to take a few minutes to gather up warm clothing and shoes for the hike down the mountain, instead of risking hypothermia in the dark on unfamiliar terrain, hoping they can get a fire going and shelter built after being exposed to the cold. Going back to the tent later was suicide.
 

April 07, 2022, 12:27:58 AM
Reply #45
Offline

Marchesk


I now think the simplest of all things happened. This view is not popular because of the emotions people have around nine youthful hikers dying a horrible death. It just doesn't seem fair, and it wasn't.

It's not because of emotions. It's because the simplest explanations don't explain enough of the details of the case, and involve some contradictions. I'm not sure any theory does, but the tree fall one and staging of the tent up the slope to cover up the accident that Teddy's book puts forward comes close.
 

April 07, 2022, 12:31:30 AM
Reply #46
Offline

Marchesk


Theres not enough snow to create an avalanche in my opinion

I don't find the avalanche theories very convincing. The people on the scene at the time didn't find evidence for one, and most people who have travelled to the mountain since then to check out theories don't think so either. Plus you still have to explain what happened after they left the tent and why three of them tried to go back to the tent if it was so covered by snow that they abandoned it without digging out their warm clothing in the first place. Doesn't make sense.
 

April 27, 2022, 11:18:58 AM
Reply #47
Offline

Teddy

Administrator
Borzenkov's analysis of Puzrin-Gaume avalanche theory

Borzenkov sends his regards to all forum members. He is in poor health hence his absence from the forum.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2022, 12:40:06 PM by Teddy »
 
The following users thanked this post: sarapuk, Morski, RMK, ThorstenW

April 27, 2022, 03:59:46 PM
Reply #48
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
DB