Theories Discussion > Avalanche
A version of the "avalanche" theory I could actually believe
eurocentric:
You're mistaking the uniformity of the fresh snow on the pass with the two different areas there'd be near the tent, where men would take one step to the side and suddenly be standing on denser snow crust after they'd been standing on less dense fresh snow. Compressive density is a scientific measurement of this resistence in snow. It's a question of them noticing this underfoot in one immediate area.
In the photo's below the tent has been dismantled and dragged to the right, and the contents over to the left. There is no sign of any slab slip event in the middle or difference in compressive density underfoot across that entire surface.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-018.jpg
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-019-1.jpg
The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1958-Subpolar-Ural-22.jpg
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---You're mistaking the uniformity of the fresh snow on the pass with the two different areas there'd be near the tent, where men would take one step to the side and suddenly be standing on denser snow crust after they'd been standing on less dense fresh snow. Compressive density is a scientific measurement of this resistence in snow. It's a question of them noticing this underfoot in one immediate area.
In the photo's below the tent has been dismantled and dragged to the right, and the contents over to the left. There is no sign of any slab slip event in the middle or difference in compressive density underfoot across that entire surface.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-018.jpg
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/3-019-1.jpg
The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-1958-Subpolar-Ural-22.jpg
--- End quote ---
I disagree, we are not talking about UK snow. If fresh snow fell, or was blown on top of Rustem and covered him with 600 mm of snow, then any hole would be covered the same with the same density. Or at least the potential.
There is no sign of weight of the searchers sinking in the snow around Rustem. It looks like they dug the hole. Enough to stand at the edge with no collapse and no foot prints..the same around the tent.
The photos you post are post excavation.
Would there not be a hole or higher ridge towards the slope assuming that the last two photos suggest they dug down 1 meter?
You say.
"The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip."
I don't think the tent had two settings for height regarding Forrest or slope. Rather just what was suitable. It's a choice .digging a hole for the tent has no relevance on high or low setting. It's about making a suitable foundation and minimalizing the effect of wind.
I would argue, any snow slip/slide would be gone in 24 hours of wind or snow. There is a link that demonstrates that Futher along the slope that an avalanche disappeared in a couple of hours. This is from the suggestion that a snow slip did not move the foundation of the tent, perhaps more from the spoil of digging the trench as in the last two photos.
However, I remain comfortable with the fact Rustem was covered with firm snow. They used probs to try and find the other bodies on the slope, not walking about guessing how firm the crust was .
Ziljoe:
To add, it isn't necessarily fresh snow.
RMK:
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on February 13, 2023, 01:11:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: eurocentric on February 13, 2023, 12:41:21 PM ---The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip.
--- End quote ---
You say.
"The tent had two height settings, higher in a forest, lower away from it, and digging a trench would lower its profile further. In the photo below from a 1958 Subpolar trek I am not seeing much more height at the sides and what little difference there is on the slopes of 1079 can be explained by some snow drift, not a slab slip."
I don't think the tent had two settings for height regarding Forrest or slope. Rather just what was suitable. It's a choice .digging a hole for the tent has no relevance on high or low setting. It's about making a suitable foundation and minimalizing the effect of wind.
--- End quote ---
Around two years ago, I took part in some discussion of the tent's "two settings" in this old thread, which might inform the present discourse.
Ziljoe:
Thanks RMK. I'm not sure if the thread covers anything regarding the snow covering the area. I vaguely remember the thread. Having had a glance it say anything conclusive .
If that is the last 2 photos of them digging a trench it's either for a tent, cache or both? . The snow that came to be after was hard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version