Theories Discussion > Avalanche
Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?
RMK:
--- Quote from: Manti on April 17, 2023, 04:43:28 PM ---This changes nothing, though. Avalanches are possible there. Ok. The tent was found upright, some skis beside it still standing in the snow. Other skis under the tent. It wasn't hit by an avalanche. I don't know, maybe it happened to be at the edge and was hit by a flying block of ice? That doesn't explain how the most injured (Lyuda, Tibo, Semyon) got to the ravine. If they were carried by their comrades, where did the blood go (Tibo's head must have been bleeding heavily).
--- End quote ---
I agree, Manti. What Gaume & Puzrin (2021) accomplished was to show that, if you accept the assumptions of their model, then a slab avalanche was in fact possible on the slope of Kholat Syakhl, and it could have caused the serious injuries that Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolles, and Zolotaryov suffered. However, a scenario in which a slab avalanche caused those injuries doesn't fit with the rest of the circumstances of the case. In particular, how were Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolles, and Zolotaryov moved down to the ravine? Zolotaryov might have been able to walk there with assistance, but Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolles weren't walking ANYWHERE in their state.
Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery. Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite. Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent. Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.
Senior Maldonado:
--- Quote from: RMK on August 13, 2023, 10:50:02 AM ---Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery. Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite. Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent. Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.
--- End quote ---
No way. This reply to "Avalanche" theory by Sergey Sogrin kills that theory completely:
https://uralstalker.com/uarch/us/2010/11/14/
Igor Dyatlov and his team would have never run from avalanche leaving the tent and all their things behind. But first of all, Igor would have never set up a camp in avalanche zone.
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: Senior Maldonado on December 11, 2025, 05:33:57 AM ---
--- Quote from: RMK on August 13, 2023, 10:50:02 AM ---Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery. Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite. Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent. Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.
--- End quote ---
No way. This reply to "Avalanche" theory by Sergey Sogrin kills that theory completely:
https://uralstalker.com/uarch/us/2010/11/14/
Igor Dyatlov and his team would have never run from avalanche leaving the tent and all their things behind. But first of all, Igor would have never set up a camp in avalanche zone.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't kill it completely. The article seems to be written in 2010. In 2020 and around 2022 there were natural avalanches reported about 1.5 km away from the tent and more recent ,on 1079 about 700 meters away from the tent location. These avalanches happened with no human interaction.
The article is poor as it states avalanches don't occur in the the northern Ural's, when , in fact they do. Obviously, this might not have happened to the hiker's but the article is flawed when it states it's impossible in the region , when avalanches do occur.
This has been discussed before and evidence given . I respect you may have not seen it and I respect the concept that an avalanche was maybe not the trigger for the hikers leaving the tent. However, the area has avalanche's.
Senior Maldonado:
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on December 11, 2025, 08:06:23 PM ---The article is poor as it states avalanches don't occur in the the northern Ural's, when , in fact they do. Obviously, this might not have happened to the hiker's but the article is flawed when it states it's impossible in the region , when avalanches do occur.
--- End quote ---
I guess your approach is too straightforward, you do not take into account the context. When Sogrin says that avalanches don't occur in the Northern Ural's, he means avalanches that are able to trigger incidents similar to DPI. Earlier he refers to USSR's regions' categories according to avalanches' risks. The Northern Ural's is category 4 - possible, but risk is very low. It is clear that Sogrin cannot contradict himself, and his meaning is that deadly avalanches do not happen in the region, where DPI occurred.
Sogrin had been on the slope during first decade of March 1959. He had good chance to investigate snow's state of the slope, as he poked it many times with a metallic probe. He had seen no signs of avalanche. The same is true for his team mates, who also were experienced winter hikers and mountain climbers. Looking at the photos taken there during the search, it can be clearly seen that snow was not even enough to cover stones and grass. Where to get snow for an avalanche is a mystery.
It looks you trust too much the crimial case files composed by Lev Ivanov and question evidence and opinions provided by the search team members later on. O'Kay. Could you please clafify to me then, when that criminal case was started? Was it started on February 6th, as it is stated on its cover and when Mr.Popov was interrogated by Cpt.Chudinov (p.48)? Or was it started on February 26th, as prosecutor Tempalov wrote in the opening document (p.1)? Or, maybe, it was started on February 28th, as Ivanov wrote asking Klinov to extend a deadline for the investigation (p.340). What is the correct date, and why do we have this mess with dates?
Ziljoe:
I do tend to look at things simply . The context seems to work along Sogrins own understanding of avalanches . If there was an avalanche, it was not deadly, thus this is potentially what we have . The most recent avalanche observed occured 700 meters away . Any signs of the avalanche had gone in two hours due to the wind. I have no idea if this was a slab avalanche or not and I don't think a slab injured the hikers at the tent. If the hikers had time to dig out injured people , then they would have time to get boots , gloves , axes , blankets for a better chance for survival away from the tent. This did not happen.
The snow on the slope will come and go . What will be there one day will not be there the next. This will be due to many factors , I believe this years expedition found snow at 2 meters deep above the tent and fresh snow fall on the tent they erected.
I think the decision to start a case was probably on the 27th/28th of February. Tempalov writes about the first 3 hikers found so has obviously written this no earlier than the 27th of February. It is the order of the hikers found that imply that the document is written after the 27th of February 59 and not before.
Ivanov would also be correct if the bodies were found on the 27th . He writes( depending on translation) "The case of the death of students was instituted on February 28" this just means established or started and for me this is reasonable given the location and means of communication and technology of that time.
So, empty tent is found , bodies the next day , official recording and documentation/ identity of the death of the first four hikers would be the 28th.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version