AVANLANCHE THEORY

[Ziljoe]

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?.

 


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).

[GlennM]

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.

[Partorg]

delete

[Partorg]

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.

[GlennM]

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.

[Partorg]

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 )).

[GlennM]

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.

[Олег Таймень]

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 search engines could disassemble ski poles anywhere on the slope. Or in several places.

[Partorg]

delete.

[Partorg]

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.

[GlennM]

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.

[WinterLeia]

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.

[Ziljoe]

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 ...?

[GlennM]

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.

[Олег Таймень]

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


Here is a slope angle of 12 degrees 20 meters from the tent


Here is a slope angle of 12 degrees 30 meters from the tent


Here is a slope angle of 11 degrees 40 meters from the tent

[Олег Таймень]

Here is a slope angle of 11 degrees 50 meters from the tent


Here is a slope angle of 16 degrees 100 meters from the tent


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

[Олег Таймень]

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.

[Олег Таймень]

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.

[Ziljoe]

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.

[Олег Таймень]

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

[Ziljoe]

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.

[Axelrod]

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?

[Partorg]

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.

[Partorg]

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

«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

«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

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

[eurocentric]

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.

[Ziljoe]

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.

[Partorg]

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.

[GlennM]

I believe the interest in avalanches is related to being caught under the crushing weight of the snow with attendant injuies and secondly, suffocation. I think more emphasis has been put on proving that an avalanche produced enough snow to bury the tent and leaving residue around the tent site. From what we are given in photographs and rescuers eye witness testimony, the tent was not buried or knocked down as one is accustomed to expect in an avalanche.

For me, I think the suffocation hazzard is more to the point. Imagine up to nine people, close tiled in that tent. If snow shifted, driftied or built up in eddy currents covering the tent, the canvas is going to make a seal. Once someone raises an alarm, the first course of action would be to bang on the tent to knock the snow off. However, if the snow was too heavy and thick, then what to do? Get out! Cut your way out of crawl out. Once outside, why not clear off the snow and go back in? I suspect that it was too snowy, windy and cold to do that. Better to make for the woods.