Theories Discussion > Avalanche

Alleged slab slide that left no trace

<< < (3/5) > >>

The tent was at elevation 880. The hills is 1079. The difference is nearly 200 vertical feet. Could the slide happen behind the photographer in the photo with the dashed lines? How do we account for the broad line of broken snow blocks glistening white in the region just behind and below the tent?  Could some of that rubble have collapsed the tent as is went past?

I feel that if the snow slide happened near the first of the month and the discovery was made at the end of the month, that is sufficient time for evidence of the natural event to be erased. What I do not get is why the wind swept slope would still preserve tracks after a month and further how could anybody claim that month old depressions in windblown ice crust show bare foot or stocking footed prints.


--- Quote from: GlennM on October 22, 2022, 09:13:16 PM ---The tent was at elevation 880. The hills is 1079. The difference is nearly 200 vertical feet.

--- End quote ---
The difference is 652 feet, because 1079 and 880 are measured in meters.

Manti, thanks for the clarification. Charles is really bring a lot of information to the avalanche/slab slip thread. If I understand it correctly, the people who proposed the slab explanation did not conduct their investigation at or near 1079, but rather at a mile or so away.

When I inquired about the blocks of snow just downhill from the tent, he explains that they were cut out by rescuers. If so, that is a lot of compacted snow removed from on and around the tent. How did it get there? Were they chopping up snow to check for bodies? I thought they used probes.

I can not readily accept that conspirators harmed the hikers and then put their tent in a most unlikely location to obfuscate the crime.I understand that cutting your way out of a collapsed tent is accepted practice. I think nine people in a collapsed tent under a pile of snow are going to be more concerned about breathing than crawling over each other to find their boots in the dark.

Then again, I am shown pictures of rock piles. We know the tent was not covered with rocks, but if compressed snow was resting on these stones,  could a disturbance caused by wind and preparing the tent have caused the rocks to resettle?

I am also a bit surprised at the rescue photographs from 1959. Some of the landscape photos would not be high on my list. I'd save my film for the really important stuff.

I guess that if these specialists want to discount the possibility of the collapse of the tent by unfortunate natural events, they should have another explanation that adheres to Occam's Razor. So far, what I've read all involves an elaborate set of circumstances and unlikely behaviors by bad actors. I've said it before, "Follow the money". If there is evil doings, someone, somewhere is cashing in on it... and, you don't leave corpses around.

Recently I have been reading more about one of the least discussed theories: methanol poisoning.

There is a decent description several pages down here: (search "methanol") Seems like it can explain almost everything

Hi Charles

Georgiy Karpushin the navigator also said he observed the body  of a female next to the tent because he could see  long hair and another body not far away. He also states he saw the tent cut from the north side. All this being noted whilst from the plane. ( I think it was the 24th)Yet ,when the first rescuers found the tent , it was collapsed, covered with hard snow and no bodies next to the tent? said" By the way, I was already struck by the fact that the tent was improperly set up, on a gradient of about 30 degrees, open to all winds and rock falls ... What made the guys do this - I can not imagine."

Someone is telling fibs .

Alexander Puzrin and Johan Gaume also say that two avalanches were observed in 2022 by experienced hikers. I believe it was the location 1.8 miles /3km from the tent but what is interesting is that any signs of the avalanche were gone in a few hours.

The photo you put your lines on , suggesting that depressions would show is not necessarily true or accurate. The tent had also been moved by that point so the red lines would be more to the right and the person that took the photo might not have been standing at the steepest part of the proposed slope/slide. I would guess it's of to the left. However , I do fail to understand someone argue about angles/lines and illustrations by calling it pseudoscience when others do the same and claim it's fact because it's theirs....

Anyway, the snow goes up and down on the slope and gets blown away, it settles in depressions of different depths of layers. Some of the hikers got covered with snow on the slope. The snow came and went , there were warmer days and colder, wind and no wind. Oh, and almost four weeks for the weather conditions to change the scene, no matter what we choose to believe.

There does seems to be a lot of conflicting statements and observations on the discovery of the tent and observations within 48 hours and what followed. Maybe we should look at the contradictions during this time frame?

I will continue to subscribe to the Wolverine theory because it fits the most variables for me.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version