Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

[Ziljoe]

I'm using the 2015 video as the main illustration,
starting at minute 13



Maybe I posted it earlier...

MAMAY: Now the snowy situation in the area of the Dyatlov Pass is very similar to the one that was here in February during the journey of the Dyatlov group. Lots of snow, it snows every day. Freezing. The wind blows. And at 70 meters, where the stream is located, such very interesting supercharges have now formed.

An almost natural cave: the pressurization hangs over the stream bed so much that it practically makes a roof. Only a small hole remains. And in place of the participants, who froze from the cold and could not make a normal fire, it would be very logical to use such a shelter from the wind, from the snow from the cold. Without much modification, it could be brought to the state of a full-fledged cave. Now it's dangerous to go there. Of course, I won’t climb there, because a multi-ton block of snow hangs from above. If it collapses, then it will bury me there forever. But in case of critical danger, it would be foolish not to use such a place.

That's a great example of how the snow closes over the ravine Axelrod . The two sides of the embankments obviously have not managed to connect in the year of this video but almost. If they had connected there would have been a void or snow cave/ snow bridge formed. We know two things for certain, that is that drifting snow forms ledges and voids to form from the edges of the ravine and that these edges can and have eventually connected as can be concluded from when the ravine 4 were discovered under a completely snow covered ravine.

How full the ravine was with snow when the hikers found it in 1959 is open to debate but there is a possibility as the video states that the hikes were manipulating these ledges and voids into a bigger snow cave . For me , this is quite plausible, my only question would be if a sudden break by a over hang of the snow ledge or roof ,would be enough to cause the injuries of the ravine 4.

[Missi]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

I let perplexity calculate. Or rather judge plausibility.
It seems, that a collapse of a snow cave build for 4 or 5 people as well as one big one for everyone could indeed result in the documented injuries. At least with enough snow on top, which would be around 1 to 3 m height. That is plausible to have been in the ravine around the time. No definitive proof, just a concept of plausibility. So a definitive: Might be possible.

[Ziljoe]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

Agree about there not being enough snow in the year of the video but probably enough to suffocate and trap a human.

In May 1959 we can see from the photos that theres a lot more snow of up to 3 meters I think and the snow had been already thawing before they were dug out.

In this photo , I believe they are standing on the stream bed but luynda would be another 80cm below that.



I think people did do some calculations on one of the threads but it ended up with the usual uncertainty we always come to. I believe I passed comment but it would depend a lot of the density of the snow. I have also looked for accidents from snow coming off roofs but they usually are just buried but again the release of snow sliding off a roof is different in its mechanics as it's not a single weight or block.

I did find injuries that occured to two boys in America or Canada I think , some ice cave or bridge collapsed and the had broken bones . Again it was different snow . Also there was another incident with tourists but it was a large snow cave and perhaps the roof was 3 meters high allowing for more speed .

[Missi]

Ziljoe, you posted while I was editing. :)

In short: Perplexity says, it might be possible.
There's still the why for everything else that happened and every other injury recorded. :)

[sarapuk]

Good to see some different angles. The researchers for the avalanche did observe a avalanche futher along the slope too. All signs of it were gone within an hour if I remember correctly. The wind on the exposed slopes can be that fierce.

At the moment, I suspect the ravine 4 were Injured where they were found . The amount of snow above them and the fact they are at ground level suggests a snow cave/hole collapsed on top of them. It seems the most plausible.

If we isolate the ravine 4 and put a different slant to how and where they were found....

If it was reported that 4 mountain climbers from the UK, Germany or France for example, were found in the UK or their home countries under 4 meters of snow , at ground level, in a ravine with the same injuries and fractures, would we question the injuries , would we say it was strange and someone else must have done it, or would we accept that it is a snow collapse.

The injuries were so severe and unusual that they could not possibly have been caused by snow at the ravine. And exactly what type of injuries are you talking about regarding the UK, Germany, France ? Where is the evidence.
 

[sarapuk]

I think the decision to start a  case was probably on the 27th/28th of February. Tempalov writes about the first 3 hikers found so has obviously written this no earlier than the 27th of February. It is the order of the hikers found that imply that the document is written after the 27th of February 59 and not before.
Ivanov would also be correct if the bodies were found on the 27th . He writes( depending on translation) "The case of the death of students was instituted on February 28" this just means established or started and for me this is reasonable given the location and means of communication and technology of that time.
So, empty tent is found , bodies the next day , official recording and documentation/ identity of the death of the first four hikers would be the 28th.

Yes, I agree that the criminal case was started on February 28th. But as the case files offer two alternative dates, February 6th and February 26th, the files cannot be considered as reliable source of information. Like later articles and interviews, information provided by the files should be double checked, wrong data should be filtered out. Facing that, I prefer to have information from all available sources, not only from the case files, and do crosscheck for every piece of information.

Concerning the Avalanche theory -

If we return to Lev Ivanov's article "Mystery of the Fireballs", we may note that he uses that publication to provide apologies to the relatives of Dyatlov's group members. This is a serious and sad topic, which cannot be mixed with jokes, stupid guesses, lies. At the same time, he talks about fireballs, not avalanches.

In the article he says:
"The true causes of the deaths were hidden from the people, and only a few knew these reasons: the former first secretary of the regional committee A.P. Kirilenko, the second secretary of the regional committee A.F. Eshtokin, the regional prosecutor N. I. Klinov and the author of these lines, who were investigating the case."

Let's assume that the true cause was an avalanche. First question is: how did it come that top ranking officials, who had never been at the Pass, knew about the avalanche, while Master of hiking Maslennikov, who was at the Pass and saw the collapsed tent there, did not know about it? Then we come to the question: why was information about the avalanche available to only very limited group of people? An avalanche is a natural phenomenon, which poses a danger to anybody, who visits the region in winter. Information about avalanche threat should had been announced wide. That would had helped to save a lot of lifes. There was no sense to keep that info secret.

And main question is: why did Ivanov apologize before the hikers' relatives? He had no reason to do that. An avalanche is indeed an overwhelming force. It came suddenly and the hikers were not able to overcome it. He was correct in his communication to them in 1959.

Whats the point of assuming it was an avalanche if you cannot provide any evidence. And then you try to use the assumption to question the actions of top ranking officials !

[sarapuk]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

I let perplexity calculate. Or rather judge plausibility.
It seems, that a collapse of a snow cave build for 4 or 5 people as well as one big one for everyone could indeed result in the documented injuries. At least with enough snow on top, which would be around 1 to 3 m height. That is plausible to have been in the ravine around the time. No definitive proof, just a concept of plausibility. So a definitive: Might be possible.

You are correct about the weight of snow. The snow at the ravine was not sufficient enough to cause those extraordinary injuries. Its a subject touched upon many times in this Forum.

[sarapuk]

Ziljoe, you posted while I was editing. :)

In short: Perplexity says, it might be possible.
There's still the why for everything else that happened and every other injury recorded. :)

Yes everything has to be taken into account with this Dyatlov incident. There are several sites of interest / concern. The tent site. The slope. The Cedar tree site. The ravine site. The ravine site is the most interesting as far as injuries are concerned. That why much attention as been paid to the ravine site over the years on this Forum and others. 

[Ziljoe]

Good to see some different angles. The researchers for the avalanche did observe a avalanche futher along the slope too. All signs of it were gone within an hour if I remember correctly. The wind on the exposed slopes can be that fierce.

At the moment, I suspect the ravine 4 were Injured where they were found . The amount of snow above them and the fact they are at ground level suggests a snow cave/hole collapsed on top of them. It seems the most plausible.

If we isolate the ravine 4 and put a different slant to how and where they were found....

If it was reported that 4 mountain climbers from the UK, Germany or France for example, were found in the UK or their home countries under 4 meters of snow , at ground level, in a ravine with the same injuries and fractures, would we question the injuries , would we say it was strange and someone else must have done it, or would we accept that it is a snow collapse.

The injuries were so severe and unusual that they could not possibly have been caused by snow at the ravine. And exactly what type of injuries are you talking about regarding the UK, Germany, France ? Where is the evidence.

sarapuk, . Do you even bother to read the threads and follow the conversation or do you just pop on every Sunday and spray random and obvious thoughts without reading anything?

You have offered no evidence as to why the injuries couldn't have have been caused at the ravine. You just state severe and unusual, which hardly an explanation for anyrhing.You are perpetually vague in any of your comments and offer nothing to construct any debate.

I ask a hypothetical question about how much we question the DPI. It's hypothetical.

And what evidence are you asking for.

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe, you posted while I was editing. :)

In short: Perplexity says, it might be possible.
There's still the why for everything else that happened and every other injury recorded. :)

Yes everything has to be taken into account with this Dyatlov incident. There are several sites of interest / concern. The tent site. The slope. The Cedar tree site. The ravine site. The ravine site is the most interesting as far as injuries are concerned. That why much attention as been paid to the ravine site over the years on this Forum and others.

Sarapuk , . The DPI is more than likely an unfortunate hiking accident .

[Ziljoe]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

I let perplexity calculate. Or rather judge plausibility.
It seems, that a collapse of a snow cave build for 4 or 5 people as well as one big one for everyone could indeed result in the documented injuries. At least with enough snow on top, which would be around 1 to 3 m height. That is plausible to have been in the ravine around the time. No definitive proof, just a concept of plausibility. So a definitive: Might be possible.

You are correct about the weight of snow. The snow at the ravine was not sufficient enough to cause those extraordinary injuries. Its a subject touched upon many times in this Forum.

Sarapuk, who are you replying to? Have you read the full post by missi?.

[sarapuk]

Good to see some different angles. The researchers for the avalanche did observe a avalanche futher along the slope too. All signs of it were gone within an hour if I remember correctly. The wind on the exposed slopes can be that fierce.

At the moment, I suspect the ravine 4 were Injured where they were found . The amount of snow above them and the fact they are at ground level suggests a snow cave/hole collapsed on top of them. It seems the most plausible.

If we isolate the ravine 4 and put a different slant to how and where they were found....

If it was reported that 4 mountain climbers from the UK, Germany or France for example, were found in the UK or their home countries under 4 meters of snow , at ground level, in a ravine with the same injuries and fractures, would we question the injuries , would we say it was strange and someone else must have done it, or would we accept that it is a snow collapse.

The injuries were so severe and unusual that they could not possibly have been caused by snow at the ravine. And exactly what type of injuries are you talking about regarding the UK, Germany, France ? Where is the evidence.

sarapuk, . Do you even bother to read the threads and follow the conversation or do you just pop on every Sunday and spray random and obvious thoughts without reading anything?

You have offered no evidence as to why the injuries couldn't have have been caused at the ravine. You just state severe and unusual, which hardly an explanation for anyrhing.You are perpetually vague in any of your comments and offer nothing to construct any debate.

I ask a hypothetical question about how much we question the DPI. It's hypothetical.

And what evidence are you asking for.

Well you seem to write a lot of stuff that goes no where. And you provide no evidence. Pure speculation. I've posted stuff for years and you are just going over and over the same old ground.

[sarapuk]

Ziljoe, you posted while I was editing. :)

In short: Perplexity says, it might be possible.
There's still the why for everything else that happened and every other injury recorded. :)

Yes everything has to be taken into account with this Dyatlov incident. There are several sites of interest / concern. The tent site. The slope. The Cedar tree site. The ravine site. The ravine site is the most interesting as far as injuries are concerned. That why much attention as been paid to the ravine site over the years on this Forum and others.

Sarapuk , . The DPI is more than likely an unfortunate hiking accident .

Is that what you would like it to be, an unfortunate accident ! ? If it was an unfortunate accident its certainly got people thinking for the last 66 years. There cant be many unfortunate accidents in history that have provoked so much thought and attention.

[sarapuk]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

I let perplexity calculate. Or rather judge plausibility.
It seems, that a collapse of a snow cave build for 4 or 5 people as well as one big one for everyone could indeed result in the documented injuries. At least with enough snow on top, which would be around 1 to 3 m height. That is plausible to have been in the ravine around the time. No definitive proof, just a concept of plausibility. So a definitive: Might be possible.

You are correct about the weight of snow. The snow at the ravine was not sufficient enough to cause those extraordinary injuries. Its a subject touched upon many times in this Forum.

Sarapuk, who are you replying to? Have you read the full post by missi?.

Yes I have read the full post by missi.

[Ziljoe]

Ah, now I get, what you imply. I know, snow can be heavy, but the amount and height shown in the video doesn't seem enough to me. We'd have to calculate a bit...

Plus then there's still the question of why they left the tent in the first place.

I let perplexity calculate. Or rather judge plausibility.
It seems, that a collapse of a snow cave build for 4 or 5 people as well as one big one for everyone could indeed result in the documented injuries. At least with enough snow on top, which would be around 1 to 3 m height. That is plausible to have been in the ravine around the time. No definitive proof, just a concept of plausibility. So a definitive: Might be possible.

You are correct about the weight of snow. The snow at the ravine was not sufficient enough to cause those extraordinary injuries. Its a subject touched upon many times in this Forum.

Sarapuk, who are you replying to? Have you read the full post by missi?.

Yes I have read the full post by missi.

You contract yourself in your own post and what missi says from researching the possibility?

Missis find it might be possible. She doesn't say its a fact.then you say

"You are correct about the weight of snow. The snow at the ravine was not sufficient enough to cause those extraordinary injuries"

What do you mean about extraordinary?

What's your point sarapuk?

[Ziljoe]

Ziljoe, you posted while I was editing. :)

In short: Perplexity says, it might be possible.
There's still the why for everything else that happened and every other injury recorded. :)

Yes everything has to be taken into account with this Dyatlov incident. There are several sites of interest / concern. The tent site. The slope. The Cedar tree site. The ravine site. The ravine site is the most interesting as far as injuries are concerned. That why much attention as been paid to the ravine site over the years on this Forum and others.

Sarapuk , . The DPI is more than likely an unfortunate hiking accident .

Is that what you would like it to be, an unfortunate accident ! ? If it was an unfortunate accident its certainly got people thinking for the last 66 years. There cant be many unfortunate accidents in history that have provoked so much thought and attention.

Yeah, well I think it's been used as a money spinner to be honest.