İdeal rabbit hole (Ican see a little ligth)

[Osi]

If I had stayed in the same situation under these circumstances, I think I would have thought like Igor.
Do not go through the gate and enter the forest. Because the sleds are not moving forward due to heavy snowfall. Come back and lighten your load.
There is an ideal cover on the ridges; tight, smooth and where the sleds can move effortlessly. If you go this route, you can reach Otorten in 2 days.
Holat; as far as I have examined, it has 3 different features from an oblique point of view. A risky slope of 25_30 degrees from the summit to 350 meters, a sweet plain between 350 and 500 meters, and a terrain structure with a Declivity of 15-18 degrees for 1 km up to the remaining forest border..
Under normal conditions, there is almost no possibility of an avalanche every 100 years in this terrain structure.
As long as there is no interference.
After moving at noon, there was constant snowfall until we reached the place where the tent was set up (5 hours). Coarse-grained soft snow falling accompanied by a light wind.This snow probably created a 40 cm cover along the route, especially from where the tent was set up to the peaks, and together with the wind accumulation caused a snow accumulation of about 1 meter at the summit. It is the most ideal snow cover for avalanches and is resistant to clinging to hard ground.
Dyatlov made the first mistake by planting the tent right in front of the riskiest resistance point and cutting off the snow. However, the location of the tent, in case of a possible slip, was still slightly to the right from the current direction of the avalanche.
What causes an avalanche is either a sudden warming of the weather or an excessive hardening of the wind. We don't know which one. There must be a small slip from where it was first cut. Although this piece of snow broke the front pillar of the tent, it destroyed the tent but did not cause any physical harm to anyone during the panic inside. The tent was cut down, and they began to come down quickly. However, they preferred to go by descending to cedar from the middle of the valley (if they had run to the right in the direction of the 880-meter peak), maybe they would not have been caught, but they would have been caught in the direction of the flow of the actual avalanche layer.
Evidence 1: The fact that one of the tent poles is broken, the other is standing, and the tent is generally in good condition indicates that it was subjected to a simple but panic-inducing small sliding movement beforehand.
Evidence 2: The fact that the footprints were around the first 30 meters from the tent and then erased shows that the large avalanche did not affect the tent, and around the first 50 meters it flowed at a 20-degree angle from the left of the tent towards the valley, and the tourists were caught in the avalanche. Those who ran along this valley merged with the avalanche after 50 60 meters.
Proof 3: There are 3 people who seem to be going back to the tent under the snow. Rustem Zina and Dyatlov were found under 25 ,35,50 cm of snow.
If they had been going back to the tent, the researchers could have seen them at least in the snow, through their clothes, without using the probe, but they Deciphered it from the snow below 50 cm. they were trapped in the avalanche and were probably the first to die. The most exposed to avalanches were Liyutmila Semyon and Tibo. I attribute his wounds to the avalanche that struck hard blows while dragging. 2 Yuri Kolovatov I think they drifted off with minimal damage and became a first aid team.
Because the avalanche layer slid on a smooth ground and there were no trees and large rocks in its path, it could not form remnants and hid its evidence by hardening until the searches.

[GlennM]

A good analysis with careful reasoning. May I add:
The hikers were warned by the Vizhay forester of bad winds on the ridge. They ignored the warning.
Though the tent was torn, it is likely they crawled out through the front flap to prevent crushing and suffocattion. The tent on the inside was not filled with snow.
Footprints suggest walking,  not running. Running at night or in hard blowing snow is more dangerous than walking.
Similarly, in those conditions, the hikers may have underestimated the distance to the woods.
There was no good reason to remain at the tent. Fire could not be started outside the tent without firewood or protection from the elements.
The stove could not be used because the tent became useless at thatntime.
Rustem was alive when he fell for the last time. The ice around him confirms this. He was on his way back to the tent along with two others. Weather conditions improved, but they were too cold to make it back alive.
If it was 5 hours to the labaz from the tent or 1 hour to the cedar from the tent. The cedar is the best course of action.
Boot rock has no firewood and little shelter.

[Osi]

They left their first traces walking calmly. Then they may have started running when they saw the huge avalanche start. We don't know because the tail of the avalanche covered these tracks.
Why did we find those who tried to return to the tent under the snow? February 2-23 does not seem to have an effective snowfall between Dec. If they lay down on the snow, they had to be found in the form of a sarcophagus due to possible falling snow or tossing snow. Because the footprints were so obvious that it could even be determined that they had been printed with military socks. If the snow covering these three people had fallen or been blown away, we would assume that 20-30 cm of snow had fallen, and the possible footprints would have received their share of this precipitation and could not provide clear evidence.

[Arjan]

Quote from the original message:
"Evidence 1: The fact that one of the tent poles is broken"

I suppose that the broken/cracked ski pole is meant as visible on the photo (made by the first search party)



Bamboo is very tough and hard to break, but it may crack - like a fire cracker - when the pressure within the bamboo holes is higher than the pressure of the surrounding when:
- bamboo is thrown in fire and the air pressure inside the bamboo holes will raise or
- when underpressure of the surrounding will cause the crack of the bamboo.

Conxlusion: a pressure wave during a few milliseconds followed by an underpressure ('vacuum') may well cause a broken/cracked ski pole.

See History of Fireworks via: https://www.americanpyro.com/history-of-fireworks?tmpl=component
 

[GlennM]

Not possible to outrun an avalanche,  I think.
The type and depth of snow for footprints and hikers bodies, may be similar but not identical, I think.
The ski pole may be broken, or just covered by snow in the photo. I think if the bamboo were exposed to a detonation of some sort, it would not flex and break. I predict the bamboo and everything around it would be blown away from the tent. The tent appears too well preserved to have survived a military weapon or a fireball..

[Axelrod]

Oleg Grebennik (leader of the search group in 1959) answers Natalya Varsegova’s questions:

[-] Well, there is such an assumption, there is such an opinion, what could they do when they pitched a tent on a treeless slope. There is a completely bare slope there. They could somehow cut the layer of snow so that it ended up falling onto this tent a few hours later just at the moment when they were going to bed. This layer of snow fell on them and crushed this tent. Now you are a fairly experienced tourist. How possible was such a situation?

[OLEG:] You know, I very little believe in this, although Slobtsov, who was there, who, in general, is a climber too. Here. Well, he expressed such an assumption. He stated this. Don't know. Well, perhaps Sogrin can say it best, because he has a ton of experience in both mountaineering and tourism.

[-] Well, Sogrin just denies the melting of any snow layer at all.

[OLEG:] Yes, I agree too. I didn’t even think that there could be an avalanche there. Because I crossed this ridge twice. And I haven’t seen any places where something like this is possible. Such a cataclysm will happen. Because the forest border is quite far from the eastern side. The slope there is quite gentle. And usually, well, at least as long as we crossed it, it was always compacted by the winds. Strong present And then this time, during the rescue operation. I also climbed this Vizhay. Here we are up. Well, let’s just say, we were skiing and didn’t fall deep on the slope after the border somewhere there. It's hard to imagine what an avalanche it was.

text from https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=7309.0

[Osi]

If there are those who have previously experienced climbing a mountain or a bare hill at an altitude of 1000 -1500 meters, please google eart; Let him compare the place where he had the experience with Kholat from the map view. I compared a few places of similar height where I climbed. Kholat's view of the places where I suffered muscle pain for a week due to the rising slope, even though my load was lighter; They remained simpler compared to the elevation descending to the Lozva and Auspiya valleys. Based on the latest version put forward by both Swiss researchers and Russia, I put the fact that today's technical capacity supports the avalanche version, in front of the testimonies of witnesses who observed the conditions of that day.

[Axelrod]

My aunt's husband created a big stir when he came up with this avalanche theory 30 years ago.
What you describe to yourself is already a big inaccuracy.
Firstly, my legs no longer hurt from going up, but from going down, and not always, but unpredictably.
The second point is that your legs may hurt for a day or two, but for your legs to hurt for a week,
Is this some other reason, or are you exaggerating.

As for the Swiss scientists, I think they are not really scientists.
Let's just say these are people sitting in front of computer screens with virtual models.

Avalanches generally happen for unknown reasons, but they usually occur in places where they happen all the time.
I have a photo of the mountains where the snow melted that day (in the morning of January 8, 2018).
but I doubt that the snow has melted at 15 degrees of inclination. From my summer hike I remember
that there are only steep slopes there. and others not so much. Usually, the snow does not melt for a long time at the site of an avalanche in the spring.

On Mount Kholat, according to the elevation map, the steepest slope is on the south side (30*), and the northeastern slope has a slope of 15*.
There is no slope of 20-30* above the tent from which a deadly avalanche could occur.
The snow on the summit completely melts in summer; there are no perennial glaciers there.

I see that the cause of the emergency with Dyatlov’s group was different, but how an avalanche is possible with ther tourists in this place of tent, this is certainly an interesting question.


ORIGINAL: Муж моей тёти создал большой резонанс, когда 30 лет назад выдвинул эту теорию лавины.
То, что вы описываете про себя, это уже большая неточность.
Во-первых, ноги болят больше не от подъёма, а от спуска, причём не всегда, а непредсказуемо.
Второй момент, ноги могут болеть день или два, а чтобы ноги болели неделю,
это какая-то другая причина, или вы преувеличиваете.

Что касается швейцарских учёных, я думаю, они не совсем учёные.
Скажем так, это люди, сидящие перед экранами компьютера с виртуальными моделями.

Лавины сходят вообще по непонятным причинам, но обычно они происходят там, где происходят постоянно.
У меня есть фото гор, где  в тот день сошёл снег (утром 8 января 2018).
но я сомневаюсь, что снег сошёл на 15 градусов наклона. По летнему походу я помню,
что там одни склоны крутые. а другие не очень. Обычно в месте лавины весной долго не тает снег.

На горе Холат по карте высот наиболее крутой склон с южной стороны (30*), а северо-восточный слон имеем уклон 15*.
Над палаткой нет наклона 20-30*, с которого могла бы сойти смертоносная лавина.
Снег на вершине летом полностью тает, там нет многолетних ледников.

Я вижу что причина ЧП с группой Дятлова была другая, а вот возможна лавина как причина ЧП
с другими туристами в этом месте, это вопрос конечно интересный.

[GlennM]

I make a distinction between avalanche and slab slide. Avalanche  being magnitudes greater. I also take into consideration the combined effects of digging the tent into a snow ledge and the force of the prevailing wind to pile or strip snow.

My conclusion is that the tent which was cut into the snow bank produced an obstacle. Windblown snow accumulated in the area upwind of the tent owing to this obstruction and its turbulence.  Subsequently, a slab slip occurred between two dissimilar layers of snow deposits exposed by the hikers while digging a foundation and ledge for their tent.

I speculate that nobody anticipated the collapse on the tent, but one or more hikers may have been outside the tent when it happened. They helped pull their comrades out of the front flap.

In conditions where temperture, darkness, wind, snow and lack of a way to keep warm were all present, the only prudent course of action is to keep out of the wind and get warm, no matter that it takes.

Boot rock offers a wind break, but no warmth. The previous day's camp was 5 hours away. The only reasonable course of action was to leave camp and seek the low ground which we identify as the cedar.

There, it may or may not make sense to believe men climbed the tree for firewood. There is evidence of a fire being lit, but obviously starved for sufficient wood.

All else is a consequence of the initial evacuation of the tent owing to the slab slide.

[Osi]

Kholat peak is 1080 m, and there is an 880 m (200 m) peak below this height. Does anyone know the altitude of the cedar tree 2 km below?
I would estimate 600 or 650 meters at best.
In this case, if you draw a line from the 1080 peak to the cedar at an average altitude of 15 degrees and 650 altitude (there is a 400 m altitude difference between them), it means that you have to go down. 100 meters every 500 meters. In this case, 2 km away, you will be well above the cedar with a slope of 15 degrees. . To descend to an altitude of 650 degrees, an average slope of 30 degrees is needed on the northeast slope. Any good mathematician will agree with me on this.
Yes, there is a nice slope of 17-18 degrees from the tent to the cedar, but there is a slope of 35-40 degrees from the tent to the peak to reach the general average of 30 degrees.

[GlennM]

Another consideration is whether the hikers took advantage of any rocky outcrop so they would not have to dig so deep.to protect the tent. Any ledge is going to affect the slope near the tent. Too, a ledge, or the peak of the tent can be a place for blown snow to accumulate. Your mathematical idea is a good one.

[Axelrod]

I have prepared screenshot from the map.

Distance to peak ~800 m, height difference = ~200 m .
Tan(15)= 0,2679
tan(15)*800m=214 m.
tan(15)*750m=201 m.
So<a average angle is 15*, not 30*

[Osi]

Could it be a coincidence that the avalanche that killed 8 players of the Uruguayan rugby team within an area of ​​thousands of kilometers caught these victims? In my opinion, wherever there is sufficient snow cover, it will trigger an avalanche, even if the slope is low, in proportion to the activity (sound, noise, breaking, cutting, running, etc.).

[Ziljoe]

Could it be a coincidence that the avalanche that killed 8 players of the Uruguayan rugby team within an area of ​​thousands of kilometers caught these victims? In my opinion, wherever there is sufficient snow cover, it will trigger an avalanche, even if the slope is low, in proportion to the activity (sound, noise, breaking, cutting, running, etc.).

I am not sure about the Uruguay rugby team. I'll have a look.

For me the concept of an avalanche ( at the tent) is a possibility but NOT a large avalanche. The slope was tampered with by the hikers if we believe the last photos and location of the found tent. I have not been at the tent site and some of what I can see make's it look unlikely for an avalanche but we have at least a cutting of four meters cut in to a slope which wouldn't happen without humans . It's is the cutting into a gentle slope that is possibly the trigger.

[GlennM]

If we refresh out memory by going to Dyatlov.com and reading the daily chronicles, it seems clear that after forty miles of trudging in the snow, all was not well. I read reports of petty punishments, pouting, quitting assigned duties, failure to follow a plan for getting out of bed, arguements over mending the tent and even a crisis over a tangerine. I know smoking and drinking Vodka are standard fare in Russia. These hikers denied themselves the drinks and smokes. It makes me think that personally and collectively when the going got tough the group cohesion disintegrated. These people were not eating well, nor sleeping comfortably. Since they could not trek uphill on the frozen tributary as they wished, since they findman lose the Mansi trail, since they fight a head wind, since they take turns brealing trail, they wore down quickly.

Being a Master of Sport, or Grade 3 is certainly prestigious. Part of that prestige is owing to enduring harsh conditions. But, I think a greater prestige comes from being smart about things. Both physical endurance and intelligence are tested in such a tour. Nature decides which, if any are going to allow all to live.

It seems strange that the group would carry a heavy load of supplies through deep show and wind only to go back on their tracks to build a cache. By heavy load, I mean they were also carrying Yuri Yuden's surpluses with them in addition to their own. Yet, they do this task but fail to bring wood for the stove and use it on their last camp.

From what I know, if the snow pack is unstable, the act of walking or skiing across it is enough to precipitate a slide. If an area is slide prone,  that will be reflected in the forest with  bare areas, knocked down trees and young growth. No description I've read in the forum refers to the area of the great cedar as an avalanche plain.

If a localized slab slide precipitated their demise, I find it reasonable. I also find it reasonable to explain the physical condition of the bodies as the result of an altercation within the group.

Rempel's admonition was correct.