Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: gunmat on April 07, 2024, 01:34:38 PM
-
lets find out where this forum stands.
-
Expand please.
-
A slab slide is not a choice.
-
I voted Very Unlikely.
And I would never stand on one. grin1
-
I’m highly skeptical of the avalanche or snow slab theory. The slope is just not steep enough.
-
There were two locations presumed to be where the tent was on 1079. The second location identified in 2019 and corroborated by photo evidence, puts the tent on a steeper slope on which the hikers excavated a ledge for leveling their tent. It is entirely likely that a slab slip crushed the tent there. It is entirely likely the hikers left the tent assuming that if they dug out their tent immediately, continued snow movement would again cover the tent as well as themselves. They did the right thing to get away from the tent in those circumstances. Ironically, less experienced hikers would have probably stayed and dug back into the tent and survived the crisis.
-
In case the complete Dyatlov group might have left the tent area on the slope - after a snow slab might had crushed the tent - at the beginning of a cold night, there is one certainty thas is caused by thermodynamica of the human body.
The group members might have been able to keep their body core temperature at 37 degrees celcius during 2 hours by moving and performing work like making the den and gathering firewood.
After two hour, the body core temperature might had started to drop 0.5 degrees Celcius every 30 minutes.
Around 4 hours after leaving the tent area, their body core temperature might had dropped to 33 degrees celcius and they might had been in profound ful hypothermia. The full group might had fallen in apathy.
Around 6 hours after leaving the tent area, all group members might had lost consciousness for the last time in their life.
Around 8 - 12 hours after leaving the tent area, the heart of every group member had stopped beating.
Around 18 hours after leaving the tent area, the process of rigor mortis had started to develop in the bodies.
Around 36 - 48 hours after leaving the tent area, the bodies had been solidified in ice.
There is one certainty: in case the group members might had left the tent area at the same time, outsiders had placed the group members in the postures as they had been found by both search parties. These outsiders had done this within a very tight time frame, because the raised arm of Yuri Kri indicates rigor mortis in the joints.
Only Zinaida had been found in a posture that resembles death by hypothermia, the other group members had been found in a postures that do not fit death by hypothermia.
-
Arjan,Why do position of the bodies not resemble death by hypothermia?
-
As far as I am aware, victims of death by hypothermia are - in general - found in a more crouched posture, similar like the 'man in snow suffering from hypothermia'.
(https://i.ibb.co/gmMPvgQ/man-in-snow-suffering-from-hypothermia-1000w.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RYpBhHt)
An additional fact of physics is: gravity.
Gravity ought to cause that the raised arm of Yuri Kri and the body of Igor Dyatlov should have fallen flat on the ground, unless rigor mortis had already started to develop in the joints of their body.
Hardly anyone dies with a raised arm like Yuri Kri, unless he had been lifted under his armpits, while rigor mortis had already developed in the joints of this arm.
And Yuri Dor lying neatly face down next to Yuri Kri, has all the characteristics of being places next to each other by others:
- by Zinaida and Rustem in case no outsiders had intervened (see my series of the last two days of the Dyatlov group) or
- by outsiders within a tight time frame.
-
Hypothermia is complicated. I agree that the to Yuri's may have been moved, buts that's possibley the rest of the group.
Dyatlov is in a classics hypothermia pose. Hypothermia victims don't end up in one position. I'm hesitant to supply pictures as the are destressing.
-
What your photo show is staged.
-
If the hikers assisted each other pre mortem, that is of no consequence. If the arguement is that they were manipulated by a third party, it is unfounded. What is important, rather what is essential is why they left the tent. They did so for self preservation. They did everything in controlled, measured steps according to their training. Nature is indifferent to this.
-
The slope, according to G & P, is 28 degrees. That is still not steep enough. Just because it can happen on a 28 degree slope, doesn’t debunk the fact that it’s very rare for avalanches to occur on slopes with a less than a 30 degree angle. Plus, I do not agree with their calculation. All the pictures that they show as proof that avalanches and slab slides do happen are on much steeper slopes. Don’t believe me? Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth.
From the follow up report, in reference to the avalanche and the snow slab:
…”the slab was softer, the slope was steeper, it was not undercut from below and the trigger was probably different, too.”
That means the slope where the tent was set up was less than 28 degrees. And considering Dr. Borzenkov’s much more professional analysis, in which he uses tools and actually measures the slope where the tent was set up instead of presenting some blurry photos of other places where avalanches do occur that have steeper slopes, I find him far more credible and will go with his calculations of the slope being no more than 20 degrees.
In actual fact, though, there is an easy way to solve this. G & P just needs to go out and find a place where an an avalanche occurs and is not steeper than the slope upon which the tent was set up. They don’t do this because there probably is no such place. Their follow-up report can be summed up in two words: confirmation bias.
-
We are reminded of two thiings. First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute. Secondly, it did happen . An avalanche did not happen. A slab slip did. The only debate is whether the hikers precipitated the event by prepping their tent site. This is significannt because the surviving relatives do not wish to accept that any ineptitude on the part of the expedition caused their demise. It is also clear that even in the aftermath, in then true Soviet fashion, several people lost their positions as scapegoats. Monetary restitution did not come, and in all probability, never will. The hikers were all given a decent burial.
-
Dear Ziljoe,
The photo of the posture of Hypothermia - from the website Australiawide - is very probably staged: a living person has person has taken this posture.
I have purposely choosen a staged photo in order to avoid unnecessary distress of group members.
An additional indication that Yuri Dor and Rustem had been moved - after they had lost consciousness for the last time - is provided in the post mortem reports:
- Yuri Dor (found face down): 'Crimson purple post-mortem spots are located on the back of the neck, torso and extremities'
- Rustem (found face down): 'Postmortem lividity is present with blue-red spots abundantly located on the rear surface of the neck, torso and limbs'.
Personally I take into account that Rustem had been turned face down after the process of post mortem lividity had stopped and rigor mortem had started.
Personally I take into account that Igor - after loosing consciousness for the last time - had been carried by two person;
- one person (with both handpalms facing to the front) holding him under his armpits
- the second person holding him at his knees.
You are right victims of hypothermia don't end up in one position:
- some hide curled behind cupboard at relative mild cold conditions
- others are found in a posture like Zinaida.
On the other hand, not many victims had been found neatly next to each other like Yuri Dor and Yuri Kri.
It is hard to estimate the body postures of the four found in the ravine, because personally I take into account that they had already been partly?/fully? defrosted in the ravine at the beginning of May. No information of post mortem lividity is mentioned on the post mortem reports, because it had already dissolved?
THis information is crucial for solving the case, because:
- if group members had left together from the tent area, non of the group members had been able to perform this kind of displacement of other group members
- if two (or more) group members had been displaced the bodies, these two (or more) group members had been far better protected against hypothermia than the others. In the area of the tent, cedar, ravine there had been only one place that had provided sufficient protection. This place is the tent. Personally I take into account that Zinaida and Rustem had survived this night - fatal for the others - in the tent. Other hint: the two flashlights had served a purpose as beacon and means of communication.
-
Hi Arjan,
Igor is in a position that other hypothermia victims have been found in.( I think it's called the boxer postion) .
I can't disagree about the two Yuri's possibly being moved shortly after death before freezing. They are in a relaxed position where gravity seems to have played it's part. Possible paradoxical undressing seems to fit but difficult to tell. Oddly enough a balaclava was reported to have been found at the ceder. Strange that it was not used and discarded.
There's also speculation that what is reported as Postmortem lividity is actually frostbite erythema. I think rigor Mortis happens before but we have the complexity of freezing/ frostbite thrown in to the mix along with thawing.
I have read ideas about the flashlights being used as beacons but that has a number of variables too.
I would say that they bodies lay where and how they fell. The two Yuri's may have been moved by others in the group after some sort of survival effort at the ravine/ ceder. Without some hard evidence of outsiders , I can only conclude hypothermia.
The Mansi were in the area within 1 km after the incident according to reports of trails when herding their moose/ deer.
-
First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute
The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013 by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.
For example, the fastening parts of the “baskets” of ski poles, which at an early stage of the search, rescuers removed from the poles in order to use the latter as avalanche probes. These “baskets”, removed and thrown into the snow next to the tent, which was moved a couple of meters up, are visible in some photos. In addition to them, other small items were found that belonged to the Dyatlovites and apparently fell out of the Tent when it was moved. The 2019 Pokurorsky expedition ignored the exact coordinates of the Tent Place provided to them by the authors of the finds and determined its own, which is located approximately 115 meters north of the true one.
A survey of the slope profile above tent place carried out at 2.5 m intervals in the winter of 2014, shows a snow surface steepness of 16 to 20°. Methodological materials on safety in the mountains, reference and scientific literature on avalanches say that sometimes, under certain weather conditions, snow movement is possible even on slopes 15°
Of course this should not turn anyone from believing in super-secret missiles wandering over the Urals, in KGB death squads, in testing vacuum and neutron bombs, in the invasion of Arctic dwarfs and the outrages of yetis.
-
Not heard the version of Arctic dwarfs yet! thumb1but everything goes ...
-
Partog, thank you for helping me make my point. Appreciated.
-
In general, the reason for Kuryakov’s dissertation was that when the first rescuers arrived at the site, they did not take photo of the tent. Now only Karelin says (he is still alive) that there were no signs of avalanche presence.
In Chernyshov’s description (see his witness testimony) it seems to be written that there were ski poles around the tent.
How can there be an avalanche if ski poles stick out half a meter around the tent?
Tempalov saw that there were no traces of an avalanche there, but did not take photographs for the others.
And now Kuryakov can defend his dissertations...
A separate interesting question: if there was no avalanche in February 1959, then could it ever be there? This is the question of this topic. An avalanche is only needed there to explain the absence of Bigfoot (Yeti), gnomes and other things in restricted set of versions.
Returning to the topic questions: I don’t think that this place on Earth (with multiple stones and human intact place) is one of those places where avalanches could occur at slope of 15 degrees.
-
As I understand it, the hikers cut and levelled snow for their tent. This created a ledge. Their tent used the ledge to help block wind and driven snow. It was the buildup of snow on the lip of the ledge which triggered the slide. This means that there was a sufficient depth of snow for the hikers to make their "L" shaped cut. They did not dig into soil. The vertical cut exposed slabs of different hardness. From the images of the tent, I too note the tent poles and ski poles standing. For me, this suggests a slumping rather than a sliding snow movement.
The angle which everyone wishes to debate appears related to the entire rise of the slope at elevation 880 on 1079. I think this misses the point. Rather, it is the angle made between the top and bottom of the snow ledge which is critical. I contend that any cut of any height makes a slump a possibiliy. From the evidence of the rescuer photos and the hikers photos, there was a ledge of sufficient height to account for the snow that rested on the tent.
Again, I believe the hikers did a textbook response to their crisis. The problem was they underestimated the distance to the treeline, nor could they predict the duration of the bad weather. The clock ran out on them during which time all subsequent injuries were sustained.
-
Yes, thanks, GlennM. Several years ago, a poster proposed that the snow removed to create the trench in which to pitch the tent fell back on the tent, or at least some of the snow. I think he was onto something and so are you. As I stated in an earlier post, perhaps some of the hikers thought that there was a possibility of an avalanche and when the snow ledge fell onto the tent that possibility seemed to be happening. So they fled the tent for the safety of the forest and the tragic outcome happened over a period of time.
-
In the first protocol of 28/2/59 , it is written.
"Camp site is located on the northeast slope of mountain 1079 at the source of Auspiya river. The camp site site is located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°. The campsite is a snow-leveled area with 8 pairs of skis at the bottom."
I have no idea if this is 30° as some others say it's as low as 15 degree's. But I wonder if there was fresh snow( as we have the foot prints) . If this fresh snow also built up above the edge of where they cut into the snow for a number of meters , could be 10 meters or 100 meters , there must be a tipping point where the load let's go , even if it's just 15 cm deep fresh snow , then we have about 5 meters
( width of cut into slope ) x 15 meters upwards , x 15 cm snow depth,pouring into the flattened area where the tent is.
Not an avalanche as we think and know but a slide of snow on to the tent. Somewhat gentle but enough to collapse the tent and frighten those inside.
I shall treat you to some high end graphics below. Self explanatory.....
(https://i.ibb.co/znk6XMy/Screenshot-20240416-192754-3.png) (https://ibb.co/WxTVkhb)
-
Of the 75 theories, this makes the most practical sense. No wonder Zolo did not write about it. There were better things to do.
-
First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute
====================
The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013
I have to disagree.
1. regarding accuracy. Even a very approximate calculation of the technical error in this kind of "measurements" on the spot, gives an error of +/- 10...12 m.
That is why different "clarifiers" have constantly diverging points of the final place.
This can be deliberately neglected, but it is unproductive to argue with the laws of physics (nature).
But it is not only that. If this point will "float" in the range of +/- 50 meters in the direction west - east, nothing will change. Natural conditions even in microscopic differences will be negligible. From the east the place "holds" the bend of the slope, to the west you can move 1...10 m without any changes in conditions. Therefore, numerous "refinements" are meaningless now and, as designers say, are "catching fleas". You can play this game to infinity, but why do it in the case of a tent site? There is an analogy in history: the Parisian Academy of Sciences stopped accepting the " PI " number refinement back in the 19th century. Because it doesn't make any sense, almost all technical calculations are done at 3.1415.
2 Regarding history. In 2013, this trio already had the coordinates of the place with an accuracy of +/- 10 meters, which was determined in 2008 and clarified in 2009. Silence about such information is a forgery. It is interesting that the winter refinement in 2014 gave a difference of 8 m, relative to 2008.
3. On-site coordination. Usually "previous" points are established by GPS coordinates, which were given by their authors. But the usual (not military!, and not geodetic!) gives an error of +/- 6 m in advance and deliberately put there. This is done by government agencies for military security reasons. That is why there are often disputes about "previous researchers" giving an inaccurate location.
by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.
These finds cannot give too exact position of the site. Because the specific location of this find lies on the way from the place where the tent was dismantled to the place of sending by helicopter - not far from the obelisk to the memorial plate. It is clear at least because all small objects were thrown directly on the fabric of the tent. When it was carried by drag to the helicopter, they fell there quite densely. What does not happen when one throws without any special intention.
For example, the fastening parts of the “baskets” of ski poles, which at an early stage of the search, rescuers removed from the poles in order to use the latter as avalanche probes. These “baskets”, removed and thrown into the snow next to the tent, which was moved a couple of meters up, are visible in some photos. In addition to them, other small items were found that belonged to the Dyatlovites and apparently fell out of the Tent when it was moved.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's a lot of controversy about something like the KAN-delabre, but that's because it's a very obscure design for traveling back then, with a lot of insurmountable flaws. So there is no point in drawing any conclusions about it, as it can't change anything. This is in addition to the fact that none of the search participants identified it and all the time they were surprised by the irrationality of the design and inconvenience in operation.
The 2019 Pokurorsky expedition ignored the exact coordinates of the Tent Place provided to them by the authors of the finds and determined its own, which is located approximately 115 meters north of the true one.
I think that no one can give instructions or advice to the representatives of legal services, but if they did so, it only shows their illiteracy in working in such field studies. And also that they did not aspire to such tasks.
A survey of the slope profile above tent place carried out at 2.5 m intervals in the winter of 2014, shows a snow surface steepness of 16 to 20°.
This is where I want to be clear. The slope above the tent, from the top of the northeastern spur of the mountain to the tent site, according to the results of double measurements in winter (2014 and 2019) had an almost constant slope of 18 degrees. Only at the very top (2...3 meters along the formation) and below the tent the slope was steeper - up to 20...21 degrees. But these were also short sections.
Methodological materials on safety in the mountains, reference and scientific literature on avalanches say that sometimes, under certain weather conditions, snow movement is possible even on slopes 15°
Yes, such a figure (as the most gentle!) is constantly mentioned by glaciologists and not only them. But avalanches (no matter what it is - "board" or fresh snow) are never "guided" by only one parameter. A whole bunch of such conditions is required there: snow condition, presence of voids - deep frost, roughness of the "substrate", difference in plasticity or fluidity of snow and other. I asked many people, including the respected Prof. Victor Popovnin (he was there with a group of prosecutors, TV and newspaper in 2019) to list all those parameters at which an avalanche can descend from a slope of 15 degrees in a given place. I didn't get an answer, apparently more time was needed to give a definite answer.
PS. There is a lot more to say here about all sorts of components of this phenomenon and details of the place, but unfortunately I do not have the opportunity to write here much and often.
-
I shall treat you to some high end graphics below. Self explanatory.....
(https://i.ibb.co/znk6XMy/Screenshot-20240416-192754-3.png) (https://ibb.co/WxTVkhb)
Dear Ziljo, this picture is not entirely accurate. If I have the time and ability to work on the computer now, I will draw you a more accurate one.
-
Thanks WAB. Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent.
You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.
-
Thanks WAB. Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent.
You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.
Dear Ziljoe, thank you for your feedback.
As I promised, I present you with a picture of clarification. It can be seen at the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UUTldk64geeVY-cKZ_1XSLYcPvFOTWrQ/view?usp=sharing
I can add that the thickness of fresh snow there is never more than 30 cm (1 foot - I have a mistake in the picture, not 1 inch, but 1 foot!). and they did not bury the tent deep, but only leveled the site. as you can see in the picture on the link
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/cG0Vot7p3ZtAYA .
-
Thanks WAB .
-
I have a feeling that these clarifications imply that while a movement of snow could ( and did) affect the tent and hikers, it was insufficient to cause the degree of personal harm seen on their remains. It was sufficient to cause the group to employ safety practices out of an abundance of caution. Is this consistent with best practices of the time? I believe so.
We need meteorological data for the weather conditions in that part of the Northern Urals at the critical times. This would reinforce the idea that snow buildup, a slide or slump and wind speed compromised the tent. Secondly, it lends credence to the necessity of the hikers to move downslope in two pushes to the tree line. It reinforces the idea that when the fire was lit at the cedar, the heat was rapidly carried off. It reminds us that you can do everything right and bad thingsnsrill happen.
-
The phrase "avalanche theory" does not cover all aspects of what is being debated when we talk about what made the hikers leave the tent.
As Glennm puts it , ( quite nicely)" a movement of snow". I believe there is a case for this. I don't argue an avalanche occurred and caused the injuries at the tent, I would however suggest that a snow slip or slide was possible and thus caused them to move away from the tent in a controlled retreat to a safer environment, the perceived safer environment being the resources of the trees for shelter .
The footprints can not be denied, bare feet, socks etc. Someone made these prints, even if outsiders did it , they were done by people not wearing boots/ shoes. The mechanic's of the snow that allows such foot prints is different to the hard snow that lies on the slope the majority of the time from what I can see in repeated videos.
To me, this anomaly of the footprints being left behind suggests fresh snow and a temperature change. The footprints would suggest no one else was there other than the hikers.
Was fresh snow falling and / or being drifted on the slope on the night the hikers chose to pitch their tent?. It would seem that is the case.
Could a not so insignificant amount of snow that had built up over a number of hours ( up to a foot deep) , slide in to the hikers cut out in the slope?.
(https://i.ibb.co/RHynGD5/Screenshot-20240416-215104.png) (https://ibb.co/QmdB7K5)
Image courtesy of WAB in helping with my poor illustration. ( this does not mean WAB shares my view points. Many thanks to WAB for doing the image).
-
With regard to those trace footprints, as grist to the mill, what self respecting assasin, convict, soldier or garden variety thug is going to go out in the middle of nowhere for the sole purpose of causing the demise of loyal Soviets and forget to put their boots on? Ziljoe is,right, prints don't lie.
-
относительно точности. Даже весьма приблизительный расчет технической погрешности при такого рода «измерениях» на месте дает погрешность +/- 10...12 м.
Я имел ввиду не координаты полученные с помощью засечек и разного рода фотопривязок, а место где КАН нашел шплинты от колец лыжных палок. А они могли быть брошены только там где кольца с палок снимали. Вот эти снятые кольца и видны на фото с только что разобранной и перетащенной на пару метров вверх палаткой.
Подсвечник, проволока, булавки, и что там ещё, были найдены там же (если я ничего не путаю), а стало быть о дальнейших путях следования палатки говорить не имеет смысла.
лавины (неважно, что это — «доска» или свежий снег) никогда не «руководствуются» только одним параметром.
Разумеется. Я так и написал: «при определённых погодных условиях» Если, например, тёплый западный ветер «как при взлёте самолёта» вечера 31/01, к ночи ослабел до каких нибудь 2 - 4 м/с и оставаясь при этом относительно тёплым (≥10°С > t° снежного покрова) омывал склон в течении нескольких часов, то склон вполне мог покрыться слоем поверхностной изморози которая и послужила «слабым слоем» для выпавшего днём из общей метели смеси свежего (атмосферного) и метелевого (перенесённого) снега.
Доски (snow slab) в этом случае конечно не было, был слаф, но и его могло хватить чтобы на первом этапе вогнать их в панику и заставить разрезать палатку чтобы выбраться из под него, а потом заставить уйти в лес чтобы дождаться там когда ветер на склоне утихнет и можно будет вернуться к раскопкам.
Такая же ночь могла там случиться двумя – тремя неделями раньше и тогда поверхностная изморозь, накрытая сверху принесенным и слежавшимся снегом, стала бы «поверхностной погребённой», с теми же функциями «слабого слоя» для лежащей на ней ветровой доски толщиной 15 - 20 см.
Естественно, такая погодная комбинация складывается там не раз в неделю. Скорее всего даже не каждый год и надо строить зимовку на этом чертовом склоне чтобы хоть в чём нибудь убедиться.
Но IMHO, оба варианта достаточно правдоподобны и в отличии от всех прочих не умножают сущностей, ибо опираются на то что там реально имеется – снег и склон. Старик Оккам может спать спокойно.
*****************
regarding accuracy. Even a very approximate calculation of the technical error in this kind of "measurements" on the spot, gives an error of +/- 10...12 m.
I did not mean the coordinates obtained using serifs and various kinds of photo references, but the place where KAN found the cotter pins from the rings of ski poles. And they could only be thrown where the rings were removed from the sticks. These removed rings are visible in the photo with the tent just dismantled and dragged a couple of meters. The candlestick, wire, and pins were found in the same place (if I’m not confusing anything), and therefore there is no point in talking about further routes of the tent
avalanches (no matter what it is - "board" or fresh snow) are never "guided" by only one parameter.
Of course. That’s what I wrote: «under certain weather conditions» If, for example, a warm westerly wind «like when an airplane takes off» on the evening of 31/01, by nightfall weakened to some 2 - 4 m/s and, while remaining warm, washed the slope for several hours, then the slope could well be covered with a layer of surface frost, which served as a weak layer for the mixture of fresh (atmospheric) snow and transported blizzard snow that fell during the day from the general snowstorm.
In this case, of course, there was no snow slab, there was a slaf, but it could have been enough to drive them into panic at the first stage and force them to cut the tent to get out, and then force them to go into the forest to wait there until the wind on the slope subsides and it will be possible to return to the excavations.
The same night could have happened there two to three weeks earlier, and then the surface frost, covered on top with brought and compacted of vind snow, would have become «surface buried» with the same functions of a “weak layer” for lying on it the wind slab 15 - 20 cm. thickness
Naturally, such a weather combination occurs there more than once a week. Most likely, not even every year, and you need to build a winter hut on this damn slope to at least be convinced of anything.
IMHO, both options are quite plausible and, unlike all the others, they do not multiply entities, because they rely on what actually exists in fact - snow and slope. Old man Occam can sleep peacefully.
-
We must also consider those footprints again. Did they lead from the tent all the way to the woods? No, why not? They were obscured owing to a mass movement of snow. It seems clear that slides, slips, slumps and even avalanches occur on the slope of 1079. The right combination of angle, densities, wind and barren landscape make it a reality. Them Mansi knew this, hence the name of 1079.
-
Snow on leeward slopes is unevenly distributed. On the upper third of the slope, the wind flow saturated with snow, turbulized by the flow around the ridge, deposits a certain amount of snow and a small accumulation occurs there. If the lee slope is steeper than ~30°, cornices may form on the ridge. If the bend is smaller, cornices do not form and the snow accumulation looks like a gentle hill. In the middle third of the slope, the wind flow is laminar and the snow almost does not linger there, and in the lower third, precipitation begins again, reaching a maximum at the bottom of the valley. It is precisely this classic layout that we see on the slope of the NE spur. 1079
The tent was located on the border of the upper and middle thirds of the slope, and snow was periodically accumulated and removed there.
In the middle third of the slope all the snow is mostly carried away, so it remained there in the form of footprints-columns cleared from the surrounding snow.
In the lower third, the footprints were simply covered in snowstorms.
As for the name of the mountain. If you trust Slinkina’s dictionary, the word: “kho'olat” translated from Mansi means “dead people.” Moreover, the dead are very ancient, mummified, mossy, almost petrified. At the top of 1079 there are several low, horizontally elongated flat rock-remains, which may well be associated in the imagination with some ancient Mansi burials.
But this is my purely subjective opinion, which I do not hope to impose on anyone )).
-
Partog, thank you. Your analysis suggests there is are areas at the top and base of the leeward slope where turbulent air facilitates the deposition of snow. Once resolved a laminar flow of air and particulate flow unimpeded in the mid section. In addition, I've seen wind scour away sand at the base of a wind shelter. So, buildup and tear down of wind driven material is the rule, not the exception. This certainly reinforces the idea that turbulence caused by the tent would serve to increase the height of a snowbank windward of the tent. Appreciated.
My understanding of 1079's native name is more along the lines of the barren slope where nothing goes or grows there.
-
First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute
The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013 by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.
There is no way that the objects found can provide evidence of the location of the tent. Firstly, it is not known whose objects these are. There are different opinions on this matter. Secondly, numerous searchers could disassemble ski poles anywhere on the slope. Or in several places.
-
There is no way that the objects found can provide evidence of the location of the tent
The artifacts were not found “anywhere,” but in the coordinates of the Tent’s location, obtained using the serif method. I have outlined the chain of reasoning and the grounds why they can be considered confirmation of the Place. But since you think that “there’s no way they can”, it means they definitely can’t and the question can be considered settled.
Увы мне, болезному.
My understanding of 1079's native name is more along the lines of the barren slope where nothing goes or grows there
Yes, I once thought so too. Many people think so. But T. Slinkina in her work “Mansi oronyms of the Urals” clearly defines oronym «Kholat Syakhl» not as Dead Mountain, but as Mountain of the Dead. Slinkina is not only a candidate of philological sciences - she is also Mansi by nationality and Mansi is her native language. I think there is no reason not to trust her. In terms of language, at least.
-
Yes, I once thought so too. Many people think so. But T. Slinkina in her work “Mansi oronyms of the Urals” clearly defines oronym «Kholat Syakhl» not as Dead Mountain, but as Mountain of the Dead. Slinkina is not only a candidate of philological sciences - she is also Mansi by nationality and Mansi is her native language. I think there is no reason not to trust her. In terms of language, at least.
Thanks Partog. In the big scheme, of course it is avery peripheral matter. My experience with native cultures is that there is a name and a back story.Put another way, to appreciate the name, one must appreciate what it means in the context of the cultural lore. Too, sometimes the name can be literal or figurative. As such, her explanation gives us the name, but not the significance of the name. I understand 1079 was not holy land. Again, I appreciate you addressing the comment, it is for me a small and peripheral distraction from our central concerns.
-
There only thing Occam’s Razorish about the avalanche theory, or slab slip theory, if you prefer, is that weather and nature-related theories don’t require as many assumptions as, say, murder or military testing. Regardless of how experienced or prepared they were, considering the extreme cold temperatures and isolation, it was still a hostile environment for them and death could be only one bad decision away. Nature is also a lot better at hiding evidence of its crime than humans are. But as I said in another post, it doesn’t matter why there’s no evidence. All that matters is that the evidence is not there. So you shouldn’t base your theory on the non-existent evidence.
Furthermore, as I have reiterated countless times, nothing about the G & P study changes the fact that avalanches below 30 degrees are uncommon and below 25 are even more uncommon. You cannot prove that the conditions that night were conducive to trigger a slab slip or avalanche. You are making assumptions that it was, which violates Occam’s Razor. There is no way to prove the existence of a weak layer above the tent, which you absolutely need for a slab slip to occur on a 20 degree slope. Indeed, at the end of the follow up report, it seems even G & P are having doubts about their theory, probably because their first paper launched a bunch of criticism at the it that they had not thought of.
Of course, we also have them fudging the data, which as far as I’m concerned makes the whole theory suspect. They either don’t know what they’re doing or are deliberately lying, neither of which recommends the theory all that much. As an aside, Dyatlov had no reason to be embarrassed based on slope angle alone. A 20 degree slope is relatively safe, even by today’s standards, and the person who advised him not to do what he did was not worried about the group triggering an avalanche, which probably was because no one had.
Verdict on what caused the hikers to flee the tent: An unknown compelling force
That is the only theory that fits all evidence and requires the least amount of assumptions. If you want to believe in the avalanche theory and explain why you believe it, I have no objection to that. Obviously, one of the theories has to be true. But to deceive the public by giving the impression that it is the solution to the mystery and not acknowledging the problems with it, which G & P didn’t do until the follow up report, in one sentence at the end of the article, is where I draw the line. The evidence left behind and the fact that there were no eyewitnesses who survived, makes that impossible.
-
It's all semantics, a snow collapse/ avalanche/ slab slide were all put forward long before G&P entered the debate. I don't even think they said they were right but only put forward a model of what might have happened from their perspective. It was claimed that a Avalanche did not happen in that area, we now know that an avalanche can happen on 1079 by its own. That's only 600 meters away from the tent location.
The problem of evidence or lack of it, is there's no evidence of anything else .
It was the media that grabbed the story, probably not because of its accuracy or scientific mumbojumbo but because media / news papers / video bloggers etc do not care on details, only what sells or gets clicks.
I know how the media work, i have seen it first hand , i also know manipulation in medical research. Unfortunately people fudge stuff all the time, usually for two reasons, 1) to make money or gain reputation, 2) to not loose money or reputation.
I suppose it's here that we have to decide if the reports and statements by the investigation were "fudged". Were people just trying to avoid blame ...?
-
Those who believe a slab/ slump theory moves the needle do,so because real world testing support the hypothesis. Currently there is at least one other open thread where advocates of murder and mayhem can post their supporting arguements and evidence. I would suspect that like minded forum investigators will populate that thread for mutual reinforcement. I trust the forum contributers are not going to war over this difference of opinion.
-
There cannot be an avalanche at the tent site designated by the prosecutor's office. There's a gentle slope there.
If we look at online maps that show the slope angle, we will see how gentle the slope is.
Here is a slope angle of 12 degrees 10 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/1XcL4Rq/Screenshot-49.png) (https://ibb.co/s172Xsw)
Here is a slope angle of 12 degrees 20 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/Jm0q5Jn/Screenshot-50.png) (https://ibb.co/YPYXps2)
Here is a slope angle of 12 degrees 30 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/b1czh8q/Screenshot-51.png) (https://ibb.co/kKNQnWk)
Here is a slope angle of 11 degrees 40 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/4mZvQH6/Screenshot-52.png) (https://ibb.co/989KM7F)
-
Here is a slope angle of 11 degrees 50 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/GMdNPs2/Screenshot-40.png) (https://ibb.co/rpQNyb6)
Here is a slope angle of 16 degrees 100 meters from the tent
(https://i.ibb.co/NL4mcLN/Screenshot-42.png) (https://ibb.co/FBP0RBY)
Then you can look for yourself and make sure that the angle of the slope does not exceed 21 degrees to the very top of the spur
(https://i.ibb.co/85nbGvN/Screenshot-43.png) (https://ibb.co/BZHGvWc)
(https://i.ibb.co/xKZrMKF/Screenshot-44.png) (https://ibb.co/qL62RLJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/DK239sG/Screenshot-45.png) (https://ibb.co/3hZtpGf)
(https://i.ibb.co/xFNpc7w/Screenshot-46.png) (https://ibb.co/9Z7FfrB)
(https://i.ibb.co/smbjbrc/Screenshot-47.png) (https://ibb.co/vwV1V8f)
(https://i.ibb.co/q0hY9Gb/Screenshot-48.png) (https://ibb.co/RhtTPnL)
-
Glaciologist Popovnin visited the site of the Dyatlov group’s tent in 2019 and gives clear answers to the questions posed by the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.
Here is a publication where Popovnin says that there is no evidence of an avalanche in this particular place. And that the power of the snow is not enough to break people’s ribs.
(https://i.ibb.co/997JknS/1111t528611.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/QNT7hQL/1111219492.png) (https://ibb.co/gTfbQ9N)
(https://i.ibb.co/BZMxYg2/1111549759.png) (https://ibb.co/ncJvKDM)
-
And the most important evidence of the absence of an avalanche or snow board is that the witness Slobtsov testified in the criminal case that there were skis and ski poles around the tent.
-
Олег Таймень , with the biggest respect, an avalanche is very different to a loaded slope of loose snow. A shift or slide of a mass of snow is what I would argue, not an avalanche, or broken ribs , but enough for the hikers to move to a safer area until they assessed the situation.
I have to agree that I don't think there was an avalanche in the stereo typical assumption of an avalanche hurtling towards the tent. However, I think there's suitable evidence that there was movement of snow. I understand that you may disagree.
If you don't think cutting in to a snow bank, irrelevant of the angle of the slope and there was no movement of snow at all, I ask , please commit yourself to a theory of to why the hikers left the tent.
I have experienced cold, snow, and movement of snow with very shallow slopes but I was involved in changing the environment , the snow would not have moved if I did not dig.
It is the hikers perspective that is important, if they thought they were in danger ( although not) , it is this we should consider.
Up till now you have not committed your thoughts. I , for one would love to hear your version.
-
Up till now you have not committed your thoughts. I , for one would love to hear your version.
Why would I express versions without evidence.. I don’t know the cause of the tragedy. Everyone else doesn't know her either.
At the moment I am looking for a place in the Dyatlov Pass where it is possible to get such injuries. It is not possible to get these injuries in the usual place of the tent. This is my opinion today. In the winter of 2025 I will go to study the south-eastern slope of Khalatchakhl, the ice between the 2nd and 3rd ridges of stones and snow accumulations on the stream where four bodies of tourists were found
-
Fair enough, just to clarify from my pet, I don't think the injuries were caused by any snow, avalanche , slab slip at the tent . I only see the snow slip/ slump/ slide as a reason the hikers left the tent and moved to the ceder / ravine . The rib fractures I think happened at the location of the ravine.
I look forward to your findings and conclusions.
-
I don’t know if there is such an expression in English, but in Russian there is "from fire to fire"
Maybe “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
It turns out that the tourists avoided one avalanche, but were caught in another avalanche, which had already overtaken them, completely?
-
There only thing Occam’s Razorish about the avalanche theory, or slab slip theory, if you prefer, is that weather and nature-related theories don’t require as many assumptions as, say, murder or military testing
Quite right. The most consistent with Occam's principle are those explanations of existing facts that contain the fewest number of assumptions. That's exactly what I meant.
shouldn’t base your theory on the non-existent evidence.
None of the existing hypotheses has evidence. And most likely, they will no longer exist. All we can use in our search for truth are arguments.
Verdict on what caused the hikers to flee the tent: An unknown compelling force. That is the only theory that fits all evidence and requires the least amount of assumptions.
grin1 okey1
-
I look forward to your findings and conclusions
memories of search participants
S. Sogrin
http://musei-suksun-savod.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post.html (http://musei-suksun-savod.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post.html)
«Maslennikov and I studied all the traces very thoroughly, and Evgeny Polikarpovich made drawings of sketches of the area, indicating where things were found and where the bodies of the dead were found.
As a result, it was possible to reconstruct all the subsequent events after the exodus of people from the tent. ( We will return to the reasons for the flight below). As the tourists jumped out of the tent, they immediately rushed down the slope. That is why the footprints cross somewhere, run into each other. This gave rise to discrepancies and disagreement when counting their number. But unequivocally there were 9 pairs of them.
These tracks led to a huge ice formed by underground groundwater. It's impossible to stand on it. Here, flying up in the air and falling on the ice, they, gaining great speed, ran downwards. There were rocks sticking out in the way. After the ice, we could see hardly distinguishable traces, which told us that their character had changed dramatically. They became heaped and small in length. Everything said that someone was hurt on this slope and someone was helped to move, supported Below the tracks disappeared completely.»
V. Karelin
https://dyatlovcreek.moy.su/publ/article/ljod_i_kamni_vladislav_karelin/1-1-0-7 (https://dyatlovcreek.moy.su/publ/article/ljod_i_kamni_vladislav_karelin/1-1-0-7)
«Moving down the slope, along the trail chains, we approached three rocky ridges. At the rocky places the tracks disappeared. And between the ridges they reappeared. The tracks finally disappeared only on loose snow in the area of shrub vegetation. The fact that such stone ridges were practically an ice surface is very important. And there were many stones sticking out of the ice. Some flat, some sharp, some cone-shaped. It was not easy to walk down the slope, crossing such ice and rocky ridge. I myself once slipped and landed literally next to a sharp rock. How could the tourists who left the tent and went down the slope overcome these icy rocky ridges? And in the dark of night. Most likely, it was on such rocky ridges that they received the main bodily injuries, according to the scheme: movement, sliding, falling, hitting a rock»
More :
S. Sogrin ; R. Sedov ; Sakhnin,
https://taina.li/forum/index.php?msg=1021705 (https://taina.li/forum/index.php?msg=1021705)
Grigoriev G. В 1959 г. reporter for the newspaper "Uralsky Rabochiy"
Letter to the "Uralsky Rabochiy" (1999)
http://samlib.ru/a/aleksej_parunin/grigorxewgpisxmowuralxskijrabochij1999g.shtml (http://samlib.ru/a/aleksej_parunin/grigorxewgpisxmowuralxskijrabochij1999g.shtml)
-
Only 4 members, including myself, have answered this Poll. Even so none seem to believe this is possible or likely.
I see no point in circular arguments about whether an avalanche was possible up there, it would never be of such magnitude, surely, that the hikers could not dig out their tent, they'd already dug out the trench without shovels, and find themselves usefully deeper in a surrounding insulating wall of snow, the mountain even less likely to produce a second avalanche. That would be more preferable than walking off to your underdressed deaths.
What I have always taken the theory to suggest, its only logic, is that a piece of snow crust directly above the tent and inline with it calved off and slid into the tent, not a localised and wider avalanche. If that happened then a repeat may be possible, impacting with greater velocity, and there is then a logic to abandoning the tent site, though even then it should be possible to retrieve more items than torches to survive elsewhere.
But if such an event was to happen you'd expect the crust above the tent to bear some evidence, leaving behind a snow-filled depression, and for this fresh infill to feel very different underfoot, containing more air than the surrounding crust? Neither witnesses or photographs suggest this, and the uphill side of the tent was not damaged by any deluge, a coat even remained stuffed into a hole on that side, the tent kept its footprint, and ski poles and skis remained in position.
The aftermath does not suggest that 3 weeks earlier something happened connected with any type of snow slide.
-
I think it's possible but so are some other theories. For me it's the most plausible explanation but obviously not a certainty.When I way it up against other proposed solutions, some sort of snow slide nudges ahead .
The avalanche 6-700 meters away from the tent that was observed on Kholat Syakhl in January 2023 shows it can happen, I believe the evidence is quickly eroded.
So we know an "avalanche" can happen on 1079 .That's a fact , plain and simple.....is it what happened to the hikers? .... Who knows.
-
The avalanche 6-700 meters away from the tent that was observed on Kholat Syakhl in January 2023 shows it can happen, I believe the evidence is quickly eroded.
Absolutely right. The avalanche on the southern slope of 1079 in itself does not prove anything: there the slope is steeper and landslides happen apparently every winter (and maybe after every heavy snowfall), but this case is indicative in that a not very strong snowstorm almost completely destroyed the traces of the landslide already after half an hour.
-
Potential suffocation, not weight of snow is why they left. They could one way or another get out of the tent, but not reenter.
-
The poll was set up to run -1 day, I don't even know how's that possible.
I extended it to 100 days. Please vote if you haven't.
-
Teddy, this is most generous of you. It tells me that you are fair minded and considerate. A lesser person would have said, " I wrote the book on this". If opinions matter, you are certainly allowing divergent points of view to be put forward. Thanks.
-
My relative Axelrod Moses (Moisey) Abramovich retired in the fall of 1997 and died six months later. Before his death, he thought a lot about this incident and invited directors from local television to his home. In the middle of the film, the following phrase was heard:
First we offer a version completely devoid of mysticism: version of a participant in the search for Dyatlovites, a person,
who has been dealing with this topic for more than 30 years, Moisei Abramovich Axelrod, one of the first in the Urals to receive the title of Master of Sports in Tourism.
Version No. 1. Indeed, the hypothesis very convincingly proves all the damage. This version has been suffered for years, and, according to Moisei Abramovich, it covers everything. He said this: “I need to convey this guess to people, while I’m alive.”
Moses died on March 1, 1998, and another relative of mine became a Jehovah's Witness on May 10, 1998.
I am not yet a “Jehovah's Witness” or an “avalanche witness,” which I have not seen myself.
Their words are not my words!
Also there is is Version #9 in the film.
Version No. 9 – connecting rod bear. It was suggested by the writer Victor Myasnikov, a character in the TAU film “Pulp Fiction 2.”
Several other people adhere to this version. We must pay tribute - this is a very real hypothesis, without any admixture of mysticism.
In total, there are 2 realistic versions in the film, and the rest versions are some kind of fantastic.
In my opinion, the avalanche event also is a matter of imagination there. If you use more imagination for yourself, you can find the participation of a bear. Because the other versions are generally fantastic, as you mean.
-
Version No. 9 – connecting rod bear. It was suggested by the writer Victor Myasnikov, a character in the TAU film “Pulp Fiction 2.”
Several other people adhere to this version. We must pay tribute - this is a very real hypothesis, without any admixture of mysticism.
You're referring here to a шатун--a bear that has awoken from dormancy before the arrival of spring--right?