Theories Discussion > Avalanche
Avalanche Theory for Dyatlov Pass Incident is Bolstered by New Study
Squatch:
None of the theories are satisfying because they don't explain all of the facts of the case. But I will pick avalanche as the most likely. Two hikers were dressed much warmer than the others and that leads me to believe those two were outside of the tent when the drastic decision was made to leave immediately.
What were they doing outside the tent? Most likely trying to repair or shore it up because of the extremely adverse weather at the time. The slits in the tent then take on a new meaning. Some of the slits appear to be made so the hikers could look outside. I think that is partially true. I think the two hikers outside were communicating with those still inside through those slits. That implies a very dire situation if it is necessary to make slits in a tent to communicate with those inside.
The biggest slits in the tent indicate immediate escape through them. The only thing that makes sense here is the hikers thought an avalanche was already occurring. Sheer panic trumps rational thought.
The injuries, I believe, all happened after reaching the treeline. A real avalanche then occurred in that area and severely injured some of them. Others tried to go back to the perceived danger at the tent because there was no other option left.
Manti:
Why communicate via slits cut in a tent when you can communicate by voice?
Why walk downslope when "escaping" an avalanche or expecting an imminent one? They would have walked to the side, out of the way of any potential avalanche.
Stay there for a few minutes, nothing happens, select a volunteer who then walks onto the suspected weakened snow area, tries to jump to see how weak it is. If the volunteer triggers a real avalanche, you have 8 healthy and able athletes to dig him out. No avalanche? The snowpack is stable, return to the tent. Walking into the very path of a potential avalanche makes no sense.
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: Squatch on April 02, 2021, 05:09:52 AM ---None of the theories are satisfying because they don't explain all of the facts of the case. But I will pick avalanche as the most likely. Two hikers were dressed much warmer than the others and that leads me to believe those two were outside of the tent when the drastic decision was made to leave immediately.
What were they doing outside the tent? Most likely trying to repair or shore it up because of the extremely adverse weather at the time. The slits in the tent then take on a new meaning. Some of the slits appear to be made so the hikers could look outside. I think that is partially true. I think the two hikers outside were communicating with those still inside through those slits. That implies a very dire situation if it is necessary to make slits in a tent to communicate with those inside.
The biggest slits in the tent indicate immediate escape through them. The only thing that makes sense here is the hikers thought an avalanche was already occurring. Sheer panic trumps rational thought.
The injuries, I believe, all happened after reaching the treeline. A real avalanche then occurred in that area and severely injured some of them. Others tried to go back to the perceived danger at the tent because there was no other option left.
--- End quote ---
You are not kidding when you say drastic decision to leave the Tent. They must have been scared to death of something and it wasnt an Avalanche.
Squatch:
--- Quote from: Manti on April 02, 2021, 09:41:57 AM ---Why communicate via slits cut in a tent when you can communicate by voice?
Why walk downslope when "escaping" an avalanche or expecting an imminent one? They would have walked to the side, out of the way of any potential avalanche.
Stay there for a few minutes, nothing happens, select a volunteer who then walks onto the suspected weakened snow area, tries to jump to see how weak it is. If the volunteer triggers a real avalanche, you have 8 healthy and able athletes to dig him out. No avalanche? The snowpack is stable, return to the tent. Walking into the very path of a potential avalanche makes no sense.
--- End quote ---
The idea is you need the horizontal slits because the howling wind is so bad. Tent fabric helps to block sound, and tent fabric fluttering in strong wind can make noise. And if the wind is that bad it lends support to the idea that two of the hikers needed to be outside to stabilize the tent. This is what is known as "trying to account for all the facts." You can't just cherry pick the facts or nitpick someone else for trying to explain a sequence of events that takes into account all the known information. The horizontal slits are there. My speculation about them offers a potential explanation.
Why walk downslope when escaping an avalanche? Because it is better than walking up to meet it! And where is this safe side that you are referring to? If it was so safe there why didn't they camp there? I doubt that anywhere is safe on that mountain.
Your suggestions presume to know what the hikers would have done in a situation we don't fully understand. When you use words like "They would have..." you are trying to limit the debate to just what you believe they would have done. The evidence is the only thing that can indicate what they did or what they were thinking.
Manti:
--- Quote from: Squatch on April 02, 2021, 06:49:55 PM ---
The idea is you need the horizontal slits because the howling wind is so bad. Tent fabric helps to block sound, and tent fabric fluttering in strong wind can make noise. And if the wind is that bad it lends support to the idea that two of the hikers needed to be outside to stabilize the tent. This is what is known as "trying to account for all the facts." You can't just cherry pick the facts or nitpick someone else for trying to explain a sequence of events that takes into account all the known information. The horizontal slits are there. My speculation about them offers a potential explanation.
Why walk downslope when escaping an avalanche? Because it is better than walking up to meet it! And where is this safe side that you are referring to? If it was so safe there why didn't they camp there? I doubt that anywhere is safe on that mountain.
Your suggestions presume to know what the hikers would have done in a situation we don't fully understand. When you use words like "They would have..." you are trying to limit the debate to just what you believe they would have done. The evidence is the only thing that can indicate what they did or what they were thinking.
--- End quote ---
Well ok sorry, I'm not trying to nitpick and it's true the horizontal slits are there, not arguing the facts of the case, I just don't think these would have been the most rational reactions from their side. For example when they made the cuts, assuming the wind is so strong they can't hear those outside, they didn't know yet it's an avalanche. So I don't think they would have ruined the tent, their only shelter just to communicate about something before knowing it's something serious.
And I haven't been to the pass (yet!), so all I know is based on personal opinions of those who have been there, but these opinions are most often that it's simply not steep enough and too rocky / uneven for an avalanche to be probable.
But I'm just speculating like everyone else. There are also other facts of the case, for example the searchers were there on the same slope, walked and skied all over it, dug up a lot of areas looking for the Dyatlov Group. And yet they never triggered an avalanche. Maybe the snow conditions were different than at the time of the incident? For sure. Speculation (really, everything is), but based on the fact the bodies were under snow, the tent was under some snow, and it was still winter and no thaw occured between the incident and the search, the snow cover was most likely only thicker than during the incident, making an avalanche more and not less likely.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version