28
« Last post by WinterLeia on April 20, 2024, 11:31:55 AM »
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.
Recent Posts
