Theories Discussion > Avalanche

those of the Dyatlov Group who were not severely injured by supposed avalanche



as I do not have the time to read through all of this: Within the avalanche theory, is there any explanation what happened AFTER the avalanche, which supposedly only severely injured a part of the group. The others than somehow transported the severely injured ones 1.5 km down the slope.

How does the avalanche theory explain the death of those not (severely) injured by the supposedly happened slab avalanche

Great question, and there is no answer. The avalanche theory doesn't explain their death.

Either the avalanche was severe enough that they couldn't dig out the tent and their supplies... which might explain their death, but then they also wouldn't be able to dig out some of those buried by it and we would see a completely different scene. Or it was not that severe, in which case they may have went to the forest to warm up next to a fire as they were cold. But they would have had a chance to collect coats, shoes, etc. And anyway they should have walked sideways, not directly downhill where the next avalanche could hit them, so this scenario also doesn't fit the scene.

Add in the relatively intact state in which the tent was found and the avalanche theory can be, so to speak, buried.

The theory that a localized avalanche in the vicinity of the tent caused the serious injuries to some of the hikers is severely brought into question by the footprint evidence. It appears to be eight or nine people, mainly in bare feet, walking in an orderly single file procession down the slope at a steady pace. But Nicolas would have been unconscious, and Luda and Semyon would have needed help. Had someone been carrying Nicolas while other people were supporting Luda and Semyon, the footprints would have shown that. Another problem is that the medical examiner said Luda would have only lived for 20 minutes after sustaining the injuries. It would have taken longer than that for the group to get down to the cedar and then go and dig out the snow den and cut off branches to line the floor with. Luda would have already died. So why would they have taken her corpse and put it in the snow den instead of leaving it beside the campfire?

Of course, they hypothesized that the snow den collapsed on them, and that’s when they sustained their injuries. But there are problems with that theory as well. Most notably, what did they use to dig out the snow den? People have claimed it would have been possible to dig it out with their hands. Well, okay. But then why wouldn’t they have been able to do that with the tent? Wouldn’t the snow right after an avalanche have been loose, having crashed down from a ledge above? And the idea that they couldn’t have found the tent is ludicrous because they would have just had to follow their footprints back up the slope. Not only that, but Zina did try to get back to the tent. But why would that have been the last resort instead of the first one? Another question that’s never been answered is why they didn’t return to the place they stored their goods for the return trip? There were items there that would have greatly increased their chances of survival.

I think that if they left the tent for the cache, they would have to be dead certain of their directions. At night with snow blowing at an angle and probably not all agreed as to what to do next, going to the woods is simpler. Too, if they went back to the cache, that would be tantamount to abandoning the expedition.

My guess is that going to the woods and then digging in a snow cave was not on anyone's mind when they went downhill. It was to huddle up and get warm, then return at daybreak to the tent. I think the exposure compromised their judgement as did the gravity of their situation. I think the group splitting in two is indicative of each person going into survival mode and choosing for themselves. It was life and death.

I agree that the tracks do not support the idea of injured people at the tent being carried or foot dragging. They may have escaped the collapse of the tent relatively well.

We are accustomed to chronicling the tragedy from the tent to the cedar, then from the cedar to the cave and from the cedar back to the tent representing a split decision. It is logical, but it also may not be accurate. I am open to suggestion.


[0] Message Index

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version