September 17, 2021, 09:20:41 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Avalanche Theory for Dyatlov Pass Incident is Bolstered by New Study  (Read 1967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


January 29, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
Reply #1
Offline

RMK


National Geographic put out a popular-press article about that new study: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2021/01/has-science-solved-history-greatest-adventure-mystery-dyatlov/

I read the NatGeo piece and skimmed Gaume & Puzrin's paper at nature.com .  I'm not convinced on the avalanche theory, but I do have more respect for it now than I did before reading.

January 29, 2021, 11:15:56 AM
Reply #2
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
I dont see anything in that scientific paper or that video that changes my mind one iota. The scientific paper is very technical and the video is very basic but neither can explain for certain that an Avalanche occurred at the Tent site. They overlook the fact that the Tent was not damaged or moved. Also the Footprints do not suggest an Avalanche. And then of course we move on to the other Events down at the Forest a mile away. People with serious head and body injuries like some of the Dyatlov Group suffered do not walk a mile.
DB

January 29, 2021, 10:43:52 PM
Reply #3
Offline

Manti


And even if they walk a mile, they would leave traces like for example blood from Tibo's very severe skull injury. Yet no blood is mentioned anywhere (not even in the ravine area where he was found which is even more strange).

February 09, 2021, 08:09:55 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Teddy

Administrator

April 02, 2021, 05:09:52 AM
Reply #5
Offline

Squatch


None of the theories are satisfying because they don't explain all of the facts of the case. But I will pick avalanche as the most likely. Two hikers were dressed much warmer than the others and that leads me to believe those two were outside of the tent when the drastic decision was made to leave immediately.

What were they doing outside the tent? Most likely trying to repair or shore it up because of the extremely adverse weather at the time. The slits in the tent then take on a new meaning. Some of the slits appear to be made so the hikers could look outside. I think that is partially true. I think the two hikers outside were communicating with those still inside through those slits. That implies a very dire situation if it is necessary to make slits in a tent to communicate with those inside.

The biggest slits in the tent indicate immediate escape through them. The only thing that makes sense here is the hikers thought an avalanche was already occurring. Sheer panic trumps rational thought.

The injuries, I believe, all happened after reaching the treeline. A real avalanche then occurred in that area and severely injured some of them. Others tried to go back to the perceived danger at the tent because there was no other option left.

April 02, 2021, 09:41:57 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Manti


Why communicate via slits cut in a tent when you can communicate by voice?

Why walk downslope when "escaping" an avalanche or expecting an imminent one? They would have walked to the side, out of the way of any potential avalanche.

Stay there for a few minutes, nothing happens, select a volunteer who then walks onto the suspected weakened snow area, tries to jump to see how weak it is. If the volunteer triggers a real avalanche, you have 8 healthy and able athletes to dig him out. No avalanche? The snowpack is stable, return to the tent.  Walking into the very path of a potential avalanche makes no sense.

April 02, 2021, 04:43:45 PM
Reply #7
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
None of the theories are satisfying because they don't explain all of the facts of the case. But I will pick avalanche as the most likely. Two hikers were dressed much warmer than the others and that leads me to believe those two were outside of the tent when the drastic decision was made to leave immediately.

What were they doing outside the tent? Most likely trying to repair or shore it up because of the extremely adverse weather at the time. The slits in the tent then take on a new meaning. Some of the slits appear to be made so the hikers could look outside. I think that is partially true. I think the two hikers outside were communicating with those still inside through those slits. That implies a very dire situation if it is necessary to make slits in a tent to communicate with those inside.

The biggest slits in the tent indicate immediate escape through them. The only thing that makes sense here is the hikers thought an avalanche was already occurring. Sheer panic trumps rational thought.

The injuries, I believe, all happened after reaching the treeline. A real avalanche then occurred in that area and severely injured some of them. Others tried to go back to the perceived danger at the tent because there was no other option left.

You are not kidding when you say drastic decision to leave the Tent. They must have been scared to death of something and it wasnt an Avalanche.
DB

April 02, 2021, 06:49:55 PM
Reply #8
Offline

Squatch


Why communicate via slits cut in a tent when you can communicate by voice?

Why walk downslope when "escaping" an avalanche or expecting an imminent one? They would have walked to the side, out of the way of any potential avalanche.

Stay there for a few minutes, nothing happens, select a volunteer who then walks onto the suspected weakened snow area, tries to jump to see how weak it is. If the volunteer triggers a real avalanche, you have 8 healthy and able athletes to dig him out. No avalanche? The snowpack is stable, return to the tent.  Walking into the very path of a potential avalanche makes no sense.

The idea is you need the horizontal slits because the howling wind is so bad. Tent fabric helps to block sound, and tent fabric fluttering in strong wind can make noise. And if the wind is that bad it lends support to the idea that two of the hikers needed to be outside to stabilize the tent. This is what is known as "trying to account for all the facts." You can't just cherry pick the facts or nitpick someone else for trying to explain a sequence of events that takes into account all the known information. The horizontal slits are there. My speculation about them offers a potential explanation.

Why walk downslope when escaping an avalanche? Because it is better than walking up to meet it! And where is this safe side that you are referring to? If it was so safe there why didn't they camp there? I doubt that anywhere is safe on that mountain.

Your suggestions presume to know what the hikers would have done in a situation we don't fully understand. When you use words like "They would have..." you are trying to limit the debate to just what you believe they would have done. The evidence is the only thing that can indicate what they did or what they were thinking.

April 03, 2021, 11:03:27 AM
Reply #9
Offline

Manti




The idea is you need the horizontal slits because the howling wind is so bad. Tent fabric helps to block sound, and tent fabric fluttering in strong wind can make noise. And if the wind is that bad it lends support to the idea that two of the hikers needed to be outside to stabilize the tent. This is what is known as "trying to account for all the facts." You can't just cherry pick the facts or nitpick someone else for trying to explain a sequence of events that takes into account all the known information. The horizontal slits are there. My speculation about them offers a potential explanation.

Why walk downslope when escaping an avalanche? Because it is better than walking up to meet it! And where is this safe side that you are referring to? If it was so safe there why didn't they camp there? I doubt that anywhere is safe on that mountain.

Your suggestions presume to know what the hikers would have done in a situation we don't fully understand. When you use words like "They would have..." you are trying to limit the debate to just what you believe they would have done. The evidence is the only thing that can indicate what they did or what they were thinking.
Well ok sorry, I'm not trying to nitpick and it's true the horizontal slits are there, not arguing the facts of the case, I just don't think these would have been the most rational reactions from their side. For example when they made the cuts, assuming the wind is so strong they can't hear those outside, they didn't know yet it's an avalanche. So I don't think they would have ruined the tent, their only shelter just to communicate about something before knowing it's something serious.

And I haven't been to the pass (yet!), so all I know is based on personal opinions of those who have been there, but these opinions are most often that it's simply not steep enough and too rocky / uneven for an avalanche to be probable.

But I'm just speculating like everyone else. There are also other facts of the case, for example the searchers were there on the same slope, walked and skied all over it, dug up a lot of areas looking for the Dyatlov Group. And yet they never triggered an avalanche. Maybe the snow conditions were different than at the time of the incident? For sure. Speculation (really, everything is), but based on the fact the bodies were under snow, the tent was under some snow, and it was still winter and no thaw occured between the incident and the search, the snow cover was most likely only thicker than during the incident, making an avalanche more and not less likely.

April 08, 2021, 03:26:49 PM
Reply #10
Offline

Squatch




The idea is you need the horizontal slits because the howling wind is so bad. Tent fabric helps to block sound, and tent fabric fluttering in strong wind can make noise. And if the wind is that bad it lends support to the idea that two of the hikers needed to be outside to stabilize the tent. This is what is known as "trying to account for all the facts." You can't just cherry pick the facts or nitpick someone else for trying to explain a sequence of events that takes into account all the known information. The horizontal slits are there. My speculation about them offers a potential explanation.

Why walk downslope when escaping an avalanche? Because it is better than walking up to meet it! And where is this safe side that you are referring to? If it was so safe there why didn't they camp there? I doubt that anywhere is safe on that mountain.

Your suggestions presume to know what the hikers would have done in a situation we don't fully understand. When you use words like "They would have..." you are trying to limit the debate to just what you believe they would have done. The evidence is the only thing that can indicate what they did or what they were thinking.
Well ok sorry, I'm not trying to nitpick and it's true the horizontal slits are there, not arguing the facts of the case, I just don't think these would have been the most rational reactions from their side. For example when they made the cuts, assuming the wind is so strong they can't hear those outside, they didn't know yet it's an avalanche. So I don't think they would have ruined the tent, their only shelter just to communicate about something before knowing it's something serious.

And I haven't been to the pass (yet!), so all I know is based on personal opinions of those who have been there, but these opinions are most often that it's simply not steep enough and too rocky / uneven for an avalanche to be probable.

But I'm just speculating like everyone else. There are also other facts of the case, for example the searchers were there on the same slope, walked and skied all over it, dug up a lot of areas looking for the Dyatlov Group. And yet they never triggered an avalanche. Maybe the snow conditions were different than at the time of the incident? For sure. Speculation (really, everything is), but based on the fact the bodies were under snow, the tent was under some snow, and it was still winter and no thaw occured between the incident and the search, the snow cover was most likely only thicker than during the incident, making an avalanche more and not less likely.

Well, the conditions at the time of the incident are the missing pieces of the puzzle, in my opinion. If this was a natural disaster and not something paranormal or caused by other people (e.g., soldiers) then the weather conditions must have been unbelievably bad. Finding the camp site days or weeks later and drawing conclusions after the fact is not a good way to think about this. There is a reason that mountain has such a bad reputation and putting some sort of weather monitoring station there year round might solve the Dyatlov Pass mystery. We might find out what that mountain is really capable of in terms of natural danger to human life.

If the conditions were extremely bad beyond belief then cutting a few horizontal slits to communicate with the two brave souls outside is not unreasonable. If the tent is ripped away by hurricane force winds then it is probably a death sentence for the hikers. So extreme situations require extreme solutions and communication was probably so critical that a few slits in the tent were considered minor inconveniences. I suppose the slits could have been patched up later, in any case.

If my assumption that the two well-dressed hikers were outside when the terrible event happened is correct, then it begs the question: Why only two? If two were outside then why not three? Or four? If the two were outside to fix the tent then the other seven must have thought the situation was salvageable. But then something happened very quickly to change that.

April 08, 2021, 03:32:18 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Squatch


And one more thought about extremely bad weather the night of the Dyatlov Pass Incident: The hikers went down to the tree line. Why go there if the tent is still intact? The answer is to escape the weather conditions at the site of the tent. It does not explain why the hikers can't get dressed first, but it shows a need to escape the conditions at the tent.

April 08, 2021, 04:32:54 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Manti


There is a reason that mountain has such a bad reputation and putting some sort of weather monitoring station there year round might solve the Dyatlov Pass mystery. We might find out what that mountain is really capable of in terms of natural danger to human life.

There is a (small) weather monitoring station there I think, on top of the Boot Rock.

April 08, 2021, 05:16:36 PM
Reply #13
Offline

Squatch


There is a reason that mountain has such a bad reputation and putting some sort of weather monitoring station there year round might solve the Dyatlov Pass mystery. We might find out what that mountain is really capable of in terms of natural danger to human life.

There is a (small) weather monitoring station there I think, on top of the Boot Rock.
I hope the data is publicly available. I would be interested in seeing it.

My best guess is horrific weather gave the Dyatlov group the impression that an avalanche was starting. Perhaps high winds threw snow on the tent. Searchers took a picture with snow on the tent, although the tent supports were still standing and gave the impression that the snow accumulated there with regular snowfalls. But it looks clumpy to me, like it rolled on the tent or was tossed on the tent.

I think that a real avalanche then happened in the ravine and killed four of the hikers. Three escaped and one of the three (Slobodin) had a head injury.

People seem to have this idea that snow is fluffy like goose down in a bed pillow. They forget that snow is frozen water. And frozen water does not change its weight. Water is heavy stuff. It does not lose weight when changing to a frozen state. So to have a large amount of snow roll over you is to have injuries similar to a car crash. The exception being that the cold from the snow will help stop bruising and give the impression that serious internal injuries had no external trauma indications. Such as in the Dyatlov Incident case.

April 09, 2021, 11:33:04 AM
Reply #14
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
And one more thought about extremely bad weather the night of the Dyatlov Pass Incident: The hikers went down to the tree line. Why go there if the tent is still intact? The answer is to escape the weather conditions at the site of the tent. It does not explain why the hikers can't get dressed first, but it shows a need to escape the conditions at the tent.

That doesnt really make much sense though. If the weather was that bad they would still have had time to get ready and collect their belongings and clothes.
DB

May 17, 2021, 12:02:12 PM
Reply #15
Offline

WinterLeia


For many of us it is extremely easy to dismiss a theory by someone that claims they got beamed up to the Mother Ship, had tea with the alien queen, and was sent on a quest. However, it is a bit different when it is a scientist with a computer model and reams of math equations who regards anyone that questions their theory like they have the intelligence of a cockroach. Maybe that is why it is so much easier for them to get people to swallow theories that aren’t much more than educated guesses, if you can even call it that.

This is an underhanded tactic from the science field that I have sadly seen too many times. They write extremely technical, usually formula-heavy articles that are extremely hard for a layman to read. I sometimes wonder how many people start to read the article, find themselves in a bewildering forest of technobabble where they can’t even tell what point the paragraph is trying to make, and finally give up and decide that the people must know what they’re talking about because they’re super smart, and they did all those experiments, and it’s based on a computer model. Computers are never wrong. Nobody ever seems to be suspicious that the people writing the article are counting on that, because their technical jargon, computer models, and pages of of math equation are hiding several major problems that can be spotted with good, old-fashioned common sense once the scientific and intellectual veneer is pushed aside.

Reading the study, it is obvious that its proponents believe that the major advantage it has over other theories is its explanation for the chest and skull injuries to some of the hikers. Quoted from the study: “Dynamic avalanche simulations suggest that even a relatively small slab could lead to severe, but non-lethal thorax and skull injuries, as reported by the post-mortem examination.” Wonderful. So are we to assume that Rustem got his skull cracked because of an avalanche, and maybe that’s how Alexander got the hole behind his ear? The hikers that had blood in their chest cavity, which the medical examiner took to be a sign of hypothermia must have actually had cracked ribs they got from the avalanche because I cannot think of anyone else this study would apply to. Semyon, Kolya, and Luda died of their injuries, so it cannot be them.

Yes, that is the point I am making. Their study only proves that a slab avalanche could cause non-lethal thorax and chest injuries in humans. They never claim otherwise. They are always careful to say “non-lethal”. That is what the jargon and math are hiding.

Now, they do address this issue, but in a way that disguises the fact that they are hand-waving the lack of evidence away. Here is their explanation: “….while our simulations shows that in principle the observed injuries could have resulted from an avalanche impact, the impact-induced deformations of the thorax would be rather sensitive to the disintegrated slab blocks and thus to the relative positions of the bodies with respect to the cut and slope direction.”

Translation: If a human body is sandwiched between two hard surfaces because the upper surface slid off something and fell on them, our study proves they can sustain non-lethal chest and skull injuries. However, if the upper surface breaks apart when it falls, then people who are under the heavier pieces might die because the force on them is going to be greater than the force on people who were fortunate enough to be in a crack or at least under a piece that is not as big.

Did anyone need a scientific study and a bunch of mathematical principles to be convinced that if something falls on you and if there’s no give in whatever surface is below you, your insides are going to get smashed? And the bigger, or at least heavier, the thing is the more damage is going to be done, and we can only take so much damage before we die? Forgive my cynicism, but I guess they needed an explanation for why the tins of crackers weren’t smashed.

So what do we got? Luda had chest injuries because she was caught between the tent floor and the slab avalanche. She died because she was in a part of the tent where the force was greater, but we don’t have any proof and we haven’t run any simulations despite the fact that we have the physical dimensions of everyone present in their autopsy reports, and there’s only so many positions they could be in. However, that is not needed because there is an element of uncertainty to our model. So if our model does not prove it, it is uncertain and therefore not incorrect, so it is correct.

They finish this section with: “It is also possible that the thorax injuries were the result of a later snow impact in a very steep ravine where the bodies of the victims escaping the avalanche were found.”

Translation: Oh, and by the way, if she did not die like that, she fell in the ravine.

Geez, I wish Luda had had as much of a safety net as they give themselves. Her injuries were not typical of a person falling in a ravine either. The only reason the medical examiner was comfortable specifying is a shock bomb. Why did they not run simulations on the injuries that would have been caused by a fall in a ravine before they just threw that out there? We could learn that if a person hits sharp, jagged ice at just the right angle they could suffer thorax damage.

Occam’s Razor is a theory based on the least amount of assumptions. However, they might not be saying that Luda was in southeast corner of the tent lying down, but they are still assuming that she was somewhere that she would receive the maximum force  from the slab avalanche, and they don’t know where she was or even what amount of force would have been needed. They don’t even know how the slab would have broken up and where the pieces would likely be deposited. A theoretical hypothesis is neither a valid theory nor an application of Occam’s Razor. When are they going to get around to doing a study on what happened to the nine hikers in Dyatlov Pass?

May 30, 2021, 12:34:07 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/video-avalanche-theory-for-dyatlov-pass-incident-is-bolstered-by-new-study/


We can safely dismiss all avalanche theories, as well as yeti-, infrasound, UFO and wolverine theories.

The injuries of the dead are not consistent with avalanches in any form or fashion, and there were no avalanches in the area.

May 30, 2021, 07:15:56 PM
Reply #17
Offline

Ziljoe


https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00081-8

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/video-avalanche-theory-for-dyatlov-pass-incident-is-bolstered-by-new-study/


We can safely dismiss all avalanche theories, as well as yeti-, infrasound, UFO and wolverine theories.

The injuries of the dead are not consistent with avalanches in any form or fashion, and there were no avalanches in the area.

Hi Per ING.

I am comfortable with it not being yetis or UFO's. Why don't you think it couldn't be an avalanche, Wolverine or infrasound? Just curious.

August 17, 2021, 04:43:54 PM
Reply #18
Offline

Squatch


They finish this section with: “It is also possible that the thorax injuries were the result of a later snow impact in a very steep ravine where the bodies of the victims escaping the avalanche were found.”

Translation: Oh, and by the way, if she did not die like that, she fell in the ravine.
I think the remaining seven sustained injuries during a later snow impact in a very steep ravine.

There is a lot of confusion about the avalanche theory because most people think there was only one avalanche. In my opinion, there were two.

The first one at the tent, though not that dangerous, gave them the impression in the weather conditions they were in that they were in serious danger. Enough snow landed on and around the tent to make cutting their way out necessary. This caused panic and their clothing was left behind (Except for the two who were found properly dressed. I think they were already outside the tent).

The second one in the ravine (after the camp fire) caused the injuries and immediate death of four of the hikers. The other three had less severe injuries from this event and tried to go back to the tent.

August 18, 2021, 08:27:32 AM
Reply #19
Offline

Manti


That sounds more plausible but on all the photos I have seen of the ravine area, it is dense  with undergrowth, which would stop the snow. And also not steep.

August 18, 2021, 04:18:08 PM
Reply #20
Offline

Squatch


That sounds more plausible but on all the photos I have seen of the ravine area, it is dense  with undergrowth, which would stop the snow. And also not steep.

When I look at the pictures of the "Den" and the area where the four hikers were discovered, I see very deep snow. I do not believe all that snow fell naturally after the death of the hikers.

From the https://dyatlovpass.com/the-den website regarding the Den: "20 m from the den, a probe 4 m deep came out with a fragment of flesh. They started to dig. Dubinina's body was found in the ravine on may 5th, 1959."

Four meters deep? How does that happen without an avalanche or serious collapse of snow?

That much snow collapsing would account for the injuries of these four hikers. If the other three escaped, they would have lighter injuries, which is what the evidence shows. Perhaps the digging of the Den helped the snow collapse to happen?

I do not claim to know for sure what happened that night. But all the evidence, in my opinion, points to unstable snow under severe weather conditions. Two times.

August 19, 2021, 01:43:12 AM
Reply #21
Offline

Игорь Б.


The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286

August 23, 2021, 02:21:52 PM
Reply #22
Offline

Manti


So the post Igor B. has linked says that 4 meters of snow can accumulate in a snowstorm in under a day.

Think powder snow that the wind fills the ravine with. I think this is very plausible... the fact that they were found at the very bottom, in the stream, seems like a strange coincidence but considering the snow must have been melting for a while, I can see how snow under them had already melted away, and the rest shifted to the lowest point, the stream, but the bodies don't melt so naturally they could end up there.

But I agree that a snow collapse could explain the injuries well.

August 24, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
Reply #23
Offline

Ziljoe


I see no problem with the snow being 4 meters deep across the ravine. Snow filling in undulations and dips in the landscape is a natural occurrence. Snow will be shallow where the wind blows and snow will gather where there is less wind.

From what I can see the ravine is more exposed than the surrounding area of trees and it looks like the wind would blow the snow down the mountain and gather. In Igor B's version of events this would of all ready happened before the group were even in the area , earlier in the winter. A natural snow cave or snow bridge could of easily have formed for them to shelter in, or manipulate into some sort cave.

There are a number of recent videos showing  the depth of the snow on the banks and tent area , although none going across the entirety of the ravine at the same level as 1959. Every year will be slightly different.

If they ravine 4 did use a naturally formed snow cave and it did collapse on top of them , there is a lot of evidence to explain their injuries. This includes broken ribs and fractures, the nature of the fractures , lack of frostbite compared to the other 5 along with other known differences in the autopsy.

It is noted by witness that the snow was harder on top of the the ravine 4 and better digging tools and strong men were requested to help dig the area above. This suggests that the snow was of  a different density above the ravine 4. The explanation for this is if the snow had collapsed it compacts and goes hard.

If you live in a country where you get snow a simple example is where snow on a roof   eventually slides off due to thawing or weight. The snow that falls on to the ground compacts and is denser than the surrounding snow. It will be the the last snow to go when the thaw comes. No different to when the snow plough clears the road, the snow that has been compressed at the side of the road and  is hard , it will  still be there long after fallen snow has melted/thawed.

August 27, 2021, 03:33:47 PM
Reply #24
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



If they ravine 4 did use a naturally formed snow cave and it did collapse on top of them , there is a lot of evidence to explain their injuries. This includes broken ribs and fractures, the nature of the fractures , lack of frostbite compared to the other 5 along with other known differences in the autopsy.


No, the injuries are not what can be expected from an avalanche.

The damaging of rib cages and pointed crushing of  skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle are consistent with injuries we see when people are killed by skilled close combat specialists. An avalanche would unlikely crush skulls and rib cages without damaging the limbs. The fracture pattern on the skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle immediately strikes one as having the shape of a rifle butt, and the fact that Dubinina and Zolotaryov had damaged rib cages with no dislocations or fractures of the limbs makes it pretty safe to exclude the avalanche and snow slad theories. Kolevatov's crushed larynx also is far from what one would find if heavy snow had caused the damage, and I myself have learned the technique in jiu jitsu. I also have learned that a trained fighting specialist very easily can break the rib cage of victims with forceful elbow strikes, and this technique leads to major internal bleeding, shock and death.

It is interesting that Zolotaryov and Dubinina, but not the two others found at the same place, had crushed rib cages. A probable explanation is that since the group almost certainly was attacked by professional killers, these professionals were grouped in three and three. One group took Zolotaryov and Dubinina, while another expedited Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. Different methods were used, according to the situation and the resistance the hikers put up.

The nine hikers were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had to pay dearly for that.

August 28, 2021, 07:27:20 AM
Reply #25
Offline

Ziljoe



If they ravine 4 did use a naturally formed snow cave and it did collapse on top of them , there is a lot of evidence to explain their injuries. This includes broken ribs and fractures, the nature of the fractures , lack of frostbite compared to the other 5 along with other known differences in the autopsy.


No, the injuries are not what can be expected from an avalanche.

The damaging of rib cages and pointed crushing of  skulls seen in Slobodin and Thibeaux-Brignolle are consistent with injuries we see when people are killed by skilled close combat specialists. An avalanche would unlikely crush skulls and rib cages without damaging the limbs. The fracture pattern on the skull of Thibeaux-Brignolle immediately strikes one as having the shape of a rifle butt, and the fact that Dubinina and Zolotaryov had damaged rib cages with no dislocations or fractures of the limbs makes it pretty safe to exclude the avalanche and snow slad theories. Kolevatov's crushed larynx also is far from what one would find if heavy snow had caused the damage, and I myself have learned the technique in jiu jitsu. I also have learned that a trained fighting specialist very easily can break the rib cage of victims with forceful elbow strikes, and this technique leads to major internal bleeding, shock and death.

It is interesting that Zolotaryov and Dubinina, but not the two others found at the same place, had crushed rib cages. A probable explanation is that since the group almost certainly was attacked by professional killers, these professionals were grouped in three and three. One group took Zolotaryov and Dubinina, while another expedited Thibeaux-Brignolle and Kolevatov. Different methods were used, according to the situation and the resistance the hikers put up.

The nine hikers were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had to pay dearly for that.

The explanation/ debate for the injuries at the ravine is not from an avalanche but a collapse from a snow cave roof.

The ravine obviously gathers snow and fills up, that's just the nature of snow and wind. Their bodies were found above a stream which would suggest it would be the lowest part of the ravine/ditch as the stream over years would have carved out the landscape.

So, it is plausible that they found a snow cave/snow bridge/ naturally formed
Gap in the snow. ( Not the snow den that was made). If the bodies were lying as found and in a snow cave,it is possible that the snow above collapsed. Depending on the forces and also what lay beneath them could cause the injuries. If there was a small amount of snow under them ,then hard ground or stones could cause the fractured skull and broken ribs . The limbs would not be broken or dislocated as you say. You have a heavy snow mass falling straight down on people, lying  on a hard lumpy surface.

The arrangement of the bodies does look like they were sheltering and using jackets as blankets. What we have got to remember ,is any outsiders would not have the knowledge that we have about the injuries and all the other details.

To stage the placement of the bodies after killing them leaves a few holes to other injuries . Dyatlov is in the natural position of people dying of hypothermia
and Slobodin's fracture may have been the result from natural freezing. Much of this is explained by Igor B and I can not take credit. He goes into far more detail.

I'm sure injuries could be inflicted by other people, trained or not but to me there would have been more aggressive fighting by the group and it is just too clumsy and prolonged for a deliberate murder . I could be wrong though....

August 28, 2021, 09:32:56 AM
Reply #26
Offline

Игорь Б.


I'm sure injuries could be inflicted by other people
Исключено.
Переломы рёбер не просто множественные, а флотирующие по нескольким линиям:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=60069
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286

August 28, 2021, 10:00:42 AM
Reply #27
Offline

Ziljoe


I'm sure injuries could be inflicted by other people
Исключено.
Переломы рёбер не просто множественные, а флотирующие по нескольким линиям:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=60069

Sorry Igor B. I was meaning that I was aware that it is possible humans could break ribs of another .

Excluded.
Rib fractures are not just multiple, but floating along several lines:

I agree with this. The ribs are broken in a line, it implies that it was a large force over a large area. The impact on the ribcage was larger than elbows or gun butts because the ribcage would look like porridge from multiple random blows. It was done in one go which is why they report it was a force similar as a car crash.

So we have two suggestions for the rib fractures. Snow cave collapse or a tree.


August 28, 2021, 10:58:19 AM
Reply #28
Offline

Игорь Б.


or a tree.
Отсутствие у четверых в ручье (в отличие от других пятерых) обморожений и пятен Вишневского свидетельствует, что они погибли быстро и одновременно. Но у Колеватова нет переломов. От чего он погиб, как не от асфиксии после обрушения снега? Никакое дерево на него точно не падало.
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=90145
The answers to all the questions related to the death of Dyatlov group:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=110407
Evidence of the death of the Dyatlov group from the Wolverine chemical weapon:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=5133&view=findpost&p=69286

August 28, 2021, 02:18:38 PM
Reply #29
Offline

Ziljoe


Igor B, you're detailed as always. I appreciate your logic.