1
General Discussion / Re: Avalanche theory
« Last post by WinterLeia on March 28, 2024, 09:54:15 PM »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.
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.