Snow Slab or Snow Cornice?

[Lupos]

Hello,
on 15 April 2023, I read an article in a magazine about the mountain guide "Dimitriy Borisov", who shows pictures about an alleged snow slab on 7 January 2023, on Kholat. The article is in German but you can see the pictures. I am not of the opinion that it is a snow slab. Snow slabs have a width of about 50 meters and a length of about 200 meters. Here it should be 500m wide. The Kinetic Energy for a large "snow slab" is missing, especially since the break-off edges are only small. In addition, the pictures show no snow at the end of the snow slab. Nor do they show close-ups of the breakaway edges. An expedition would have taken detailed pictures, especially since the mountain was only 500m away. I think the expedition, which has direct contact with the Swiss "Puzrin", only wanted to help them. And "I am sure that it is a "Snow Cornice". Please let me know your opinion.

https://www.20min.ch/story/fotos-bekraeftigen-die-schweizer-these-zur-tragoedie-am-berg-des-todes-638072746377

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Manti]

The shape of the peak seems to match:



So, I'd say the photo was really taken there. It looks like a poor quality smartphone photo. But I have no doubt that it shows the aftermath of an avalanche. The area where the avalanche ends is too blurry to see the snow's conditions there. I agree, they should have taken better photos and checked out the faultline (edge).

Here's what a typical slab avalanche looks like:


Similar enough.


This changes nothing, though. Avalanches are possible there. Ok. The tent was found upright, some skis beside it still standing in the snow. Other skis under the tent. It wasn't hit by an avalanche. I don't know, maybe it happened to be at the edge and was hit by a flying block of ice? That doesn't explain how the most injured (Lyuda, Tibo, Semyon) got to the ravine. If they were carried by their comrades, where did the blood go (Tibo's head must have been bleeding heavily).
Another one:

[Manti]

Another photo of a typical slab avalanche:


If the person took the photo from the Boot Rock, the avalanche went kind of South-East, whereas the tent was more to the North-East. I can imagine a scenario where an avalanche does occur, but doesn't hit the tent. It's still a reason to leave the tent ASAP. Maybe that's how the incident started. But how did the ravine 4 injure themselves? There's more to the DPI...

[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.

[WinterLeia]

Dimitri Borisov did not take a picture of an avalanche in the vicinity of the tent. He took a picture of an avalanche nearly two miles away, where avalanches do take place and where conditions are very different from the area around the tent. Dr. Vladimir Borzenko proved this by going there and taking pictures of the terrain himself.

This photo was taken from the top of Boot Rock of the area where the avalanche was caught on camera:



This photo is the best place to see evidence of an avalanche:



And this photo was taken from where the tent was located:

Using that patch of snow or ice or whatever that is as a reference point, it’s very obvious that there was quite a bit of distance between the two locations.



As for whether avalanches are possible at the tent location, I defer to Dr. Vladimir Borzenkov. There is no record that an avalanche ever took place there. But even proponents of the avalanche theory have had to admit that the slope just isn’t steep enough for an avalanche to occur there without human intervention. Furthermore, if one did occur there, it wouldn’t be a big one or go much past the side of the tent facing the forest line. Again, the slope is just not steep enough for it to go any farther. In addition, it would have obliterated the footprints. And it had to have missed the entrance since the entrance was still in an upright position when searchers found the tent a few weeks later.

[RMK]

This changes nothing, though. Avalanches are possible there. Ok. The tent was found upright, some skis beside it still standing in the snow. Other skis under the tent. It wasn't hit by an avalanche. I don't know, maybe it happened to be at the edge and was hit by a flying block of ice? That doesn't explain how the most injured (Lyuda, Tibo, Semyon) got to the ravine. If they were carried by their comrades, where did the blood go (Tibo's head must have been bleeding heavily).

I agree, Manti.  What Gaume & Puzrin (2021) accomplished was to show that, if you accept the assumptions of their model, then a slab avalanche was in fact possible on the slope of Kholat Syakhl, and it could have caused the serious injuries that Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolles, and Zolotaryov suffered.  However, a scenario in which a slab avalanche caused those injuries doesn't fit with the rest of the circumstances of the case.  In particular, how were Dubinina, Thibeaux-Brignolles, and Zolotaryov moved down to the ravine?  Zolotaryov might have been able to walk there with assistance, but Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolles weren't walking ANYWHERE in their state.

Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery.  Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite.  Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent.  Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.

[Senior Maldonado]

Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery.  Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite.  Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent.  Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.

No way. This reply to "Avalanche" theory by Sergey Sogrin kills that theory completely:
https://uralstalker.com/uarch/us/2010/11/14/
Igor Dyatlov and his team would have never run from avalanche leaving the tent and all their things behind. But first of all, Igor would have never set up a camp in avalanche zone.

[Ziljoe]

Nonetheless, maybe an avalanche really is the key to the mystery.  Maybe a slab avalanche at or near their campsite didn't seriously hurt any of the Dyatlovites, but sufficed to motivate them to abandon their campsite.  Perhaps they overestimated their survival chances away from the tent.  Even experienced people can make errors in judgment from time to time.

No way. This reply to "Avalanche" theory by Sergey Sogrin kills that theory completely:
https://uralstalker.com/uarch/us/2010/11/14/
Igor Dyatlov and his team would have never run from avalanche leaving the tent and all their things behind. But first of all, Igor would have never set up a camp in avalanche zone.

It doesn't kill it completely. The article seems to be written in 2010. In 2020 and around 2022 there were natural avalanches reported about 1.5 km away from the tent and more recent ,on 1079 about 700 meters away from the tent location. These avalanches happened with no human interaction.

The article is poor as it states avalanches don't occur in the the northern Ural's, when , in fact they do. Obviously, this might not have happened to the hiker's but the article is flawed when it states it's impossible in the region , when avalanches do occur.

This has been discussed before and evidence given . I respect you may have not seen it and I respect the concept that an avalanche was maybe not the trigger for the hikers leaving the tent. However, the area has avalanche's.

[Senior Maldonado]

The article is poor as it states avalanches don't occur in the the northern Ural's, when , in fact they do. Obviously, this might not have happened to the hiker's but the article is flawed when it states it's impossible in the region , when avalanches do occur.

I guess your approach is too straightforward, you do not take into account the context. When Sogrin says that avalanches don't occur in the Northern Ural's, he means avalanches that are able to trigger incidents similar to DPI. Earlier he refers to USSR's regions' categories according to avalanches' risks. The Northern Ural's is category 4 - possible, but risk is very low. It is clear that Sogrin cannot contradict himself, and his meaning is that deadly avalanches do not happen in the region, where DPI occurred.

Sogrin had been on the slope during first decade of March 1959. He had good chance to investigate snow's state of the slope, as he poked it many times with a metallic probe. He had seen no signs of avalanche. The same is true for his team mates, who also were experienced winter hikers and mountain climbers. Looking at the photos taken there during the search, it can be clearly seen that snow was not even enough to cover stones and grass. Where to get snow for an avalanche is a mystery.

It looks you trust too much the crimial case files composed by Lev Ivanov and question evidence and opinions provided by the search team members later on. O'Kay. Could you please clafify to me then, when that criminal case was started? Was it started on February 6th, as it is stated on its cover and when Mr.Popov was interrogated by Cpt.Chudinov (p.48)? Or was it started on February 26th, as prosecutor Tempalov wrote in the opening document (p.1)? Or, maybe, it was started on February 28th, as Ivanov wrote asking Klinov to extend a deadline for the investigation (p.340). What is the correct date, and why do we have this mess with dates?

[Ziljoe]

I do tend to look at things simply . The context seems to work along Sogrins own understanding of avalanches . If there was an avalanche, it was not deadly, thus this is potentially what we have . The most recent avalanche observed occured 700 meters away . Any signs of the avalanche had gone in two hours due to the wind. I have no idea if this was a slab avalanche or not and I don't think a slab injured the hikers at the tent. If the hikers had time to dig out injured people , then they would have time to get boots , gloves , axes , blankets for a better chance for survival away from the tent. This did not happen.
The snow on the slope will come and go . What will be there one day will not be there the next. This will be due to many factors , I believe this years expedition found snow at 2 meters deep above the tent and fresh snow fall on the tent they erected.

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.

[Senior Maldonado]

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.

[Ziljoe]

I'm not sure the model of assuming it was an avalanche and those at the top knew it was , covered it up. That's not what's reported.

The tent is found empty on the , 26 th , that's the first part of something being wrong and reviewing the need for an investigation. That has its own merit in seriousness and concern. Less than 24 hours later , 4 bodies are discovered . It would seem that this is written or communicated at least a day later than the the 26th of February . It can't be written before the 26th of February, it may be a wrong date by the author or the thought that it's appropriate to say the case started on the 26th in hindsight of finding the tent.

The chronological order of what is in the text fits with what is being written about. I would expect errors and contradictions in a case to a certain degree as that's the nature of files and it is the best source of information we have. We can't dismiss the case files because of a difference in a days documented date? By two separate authors .

It could be the other way round regarding Ivanov's article.  The publication is being used to sell . I doubt that lvanov even said half those things. The article is full of mistakes ,and , to put it politely, full of sensationalism. If ivanov knew something he could just say it but it's obvious that he didn't or his name is being used.

The case is as many , "unknown" . Over whelming force is the basic answer , it could be avalanche, crashed rocket , hurricane, infrasound but the truth is the investigation didn't find out what happened, not because it was covered up.

[WAB]

I'm not sure the model of assuming it was an avalanche and those at the top knew it was , covered it up. That's not what's reported.

Dear Ziljoe! Unfortunately, I am unable to write here regularly, but allow me to comment on what you have written here… 1. Regarding the content (by the title) of the topic. Based on my own numerous on-site investigations, I must state unequivocally that in no local place where the events occurred could there have been any avalanches, cornice collapses, or anything of that sort for physical reasons. There are simply no conditions for this. All discussions on forums, in the press, and elsewhere are fabrications by those who have not been there and cannot even imagine the conditions even approximately.
2. In order to hide something, one must have a very significant reason. Can you (or anyone else on this forum) point to such a significant reason that it should be hidden for more than 65 years, especially considering that many more significant events have been published during this time? Perhaps it is logical to assume that there is nothing to hide, because there is nothing special?

The tent is found empty on the , 26 th , that's the first part of something being wrong and reviewing the need for an investigation. That has its own merit in seriousness and concern. Less than 24 hours later , 4 bodies are discovered . It would seem that this is written or communicated at least a day later than the the 26th of February . It can't be written before the 26th of February, it may be a wrong date by the author or the thought that it's appropriate to say the case started on the 26th in hindsight of finding the tent.

Let's clarify these points based on current legislation and the practice of investigating such criminal cases at the time…
1. As my old friend, who is a senior employee of one of the federal archives, told me, on the cover of a completed case, in the 'start' and 'end' fields, the law requires the dates of the earliest (or latest) document contained therein to be entered, even if it is incorrect. If a date error is discovered that does not affect the events themselves, a very lengthy and costly procedure is required to correct the date in the document. This procedure is not used in 99% of cases because it does not affect the results of the investigation.
2. A criminal case can be opened based on the fact of the event or by the decision of a prosecutor who has information about the event. Therefore, it does not matter when the case was opened: 26 or 28 February. Prosecutor Tempalov knew that the group had gone missing in his jurisdiction even before that. Therefore, the date he opened the case is his prerogative. No one can change this if the law is followed. In this case, the case was opened based on the discovery of the bodies when the prosecutor confirmed it himself.

The chronological order of what is in the text fits with what is being written about. I would expect errors and contradictions in a case to a certain degree as that's the nature of files and it is the best source of information we have. We can't dismiss the case files because of a difference in a days documented date? By two separate authors .

You are absolutely right. I provided the justification for this in the text above. Whoever writes what, everything must be done according to the law in force at the time. One must also consider the practice of conducting such investigations at that time. This adds to the understanding of what constitutes 'disagreements'. The attempt to 'correct' what happened on the principle of 'it should have been this way' is nothing more than fantasy. 'History does not tolerate the subjunctive.' (с)
 

It could be the other way round regarding Ivanov's article.  The publication is being used to sell . I doubt that lvanov even said half those things. The article is full of mistakes ,and , to put it politely, full of sensationalism. If !Ivanov knew something he could just say it but it's obvious that he didn't or his name is being used.

You are also completely right about this. One must take into account the time when Ivanov wrote his article (and many letters to the press and authorities). It was a time of complete recklessness in judgments, when many wanted to blame the past and align themselves with the 'new times'. Therefore, I do not believe that what Ivanov wrote was untrue; he simply 'shifted the emphasis' in a way that was convenient and 'pleasing' to the authorities of that time.
 

The case is as many , "unknown" . Over whelming force is the basic answer , it could be avalanche, crashed rocket , hurricane, infrasound but the truth is the investigation didn't find out what happened, not because it was covered up.

Yes, you are right that the reasons were not really explained because there was not enough knowledge at the time. I can clarify a lot here as a specialist in these fields of knowledge.
1. Avalanche. I managed to conduct extensive on-site research regarding the snow conditions at the tent location and the surrounding area. If you recall our correspondence with Alexander Puzrin (professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)) after he published an article on the 'Dyatlov Pass avalanche' in 2021, I wrote to him that there is a location not far from the tent site where the conditions for an avalanche are much greater than at the actual event site (the tent). Interestingly, a year later, there was a complex snow situation, and a landslide occurred exactly in the place I had pointed out, about 700 metres from the tent site. However, at the site where the tent was in 1959, there were no movements.
It's roughly the same as blaming a car driver for hitting a pedestrian if another car, with a different driver, hit a person on the adjoining street.

2. War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

3. Hurricane. There are no wind speeds in nature that can carry a person far in any condition. This has been tested in practice at speeds up to 50 m/s (2.23 mph or kt). At such speeds, a person is knocked down onto the snow and may be dragged to the nearest obstacle (snow drift, rock, tree, etc.), and then pressed down without moving. The distance can be up to 10–15 m (30–40 ft), but no more… These are rather fantasies that have existed since the 1959 searches. They arose because the search participants at the time could not explain the reasons for leaving the tent…

4. I will not say anything about infrasound (neither - 'yes', nor - 'no') because almost none of the forum readers have enough knowledge to competently judge this physical phenomenon. As a result, many constantly repeat various myths and fakes, completely misunderstanding the physics and nature of the phenomenon.

[Senior Maldonado]

Avalanche. I managed to conduct extensive on-site research regarding the snow conditions at the tent location and the surrounding area. If you recall our correspondence with Alexander Puzrin (professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)) after he published an article on the 'Dyatlov Pass avalanche' in 2021, I wrote to him that there is a location not far from the tent site where the conditions for an avalanche are much greater than at the actual event site (the tent). Interestingly, a year later, there was a complex snow situation, and a landslide occurred exactly in the place I had pointed out, about 700 metres from the tent site. However, at the site where the tent was in 1959, there were no movements.
It's roughly the same as blaming a car driver for hitting a pedestrian if another car, with a different driver, hit a person on the adjoining street.

Clear and correct. Avalanche at the tent's site, RIP.

War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

We should not underestimate military guys, they are very creative. At least two their products could easily reach the Pass at that time. R-7 could be launched from Baikanur, and B-350 could be launched from Vladimirovka. And we should keep in mind space rockets as well. On January 2nd they launched the Luna-1 probe to the Moon and almost reached the target. So reaching the Pass on February 1st with space technology of that time was a piece of cake.

[WAB]

War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

We should not underestimate military guys, they are very creative.

At one time, I too did not escape the fate of serving in the army (Air Force). And later I spent a lot of time developing various military equipment. Therefore, I can say that military personnel are much less cunning than amateurs who want to show off their "scholarship". Their imagination often exceeds the limits of common sense and basic real knowledge.

At least two their products could easily reach the Pass at that time. R-7 could be launched from Baikanur, and B-350 could be launched from Vladimirovka.

They couldn't. Only in the minds of unscientific fantasists. The Р-7 (Russian letter) did not fly from Tyura-Tam (Baikonur) in these directions at that time. The trajectories were aimed at E-M-E, on the Tyura-Tam to Omsk segment. If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle. The exact designation of the cruise missile 'Burya' is: В-350 (Russian letter). At that time, such launches did not occur (as with Р-7 launches). This is definitively established from primary sources.
"Burya" flew on 28 December 1958 and 19 April 1959. On 20 February 1959 there was no launch, the launch installation did not work. Any other dates exist only in the fevered imagination of amateurs. Launches of the R-7 (Russian letter) occurred only on 2 January (towards the Moon) and 17 February 1959 (this launch was observed by Vladislav Karelin's group during their expedition). There were no launches in between because there were no rockets. The one-off manual assembly had already been discontinued, and the production plant could only send a rocket in February. According to available data, on 2 February 1959 there was a launch from Vladimirovka of the R (Russian letter)-5m rocket. Its maximum (calculated) range was 1208 km (750 mi), and the distance to the pass was 1670 km (1037 mi).
About 10 years ago, I made a diagram of this launch specifically for Vladislav Karelin: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L5z6WKpFXu8s7Q07qFjnr1QhH66_v7hq/view?usp=sharing. The labels are in Russian, but they can easily be translated in any programme by typing them manually. It is easy to see there that, in any case, it would not have reached the pass. The structural considerations are exactly the same as those I mentioned above. Therefore, considering it is extremely unserious.

And we should keep in mind space rockets as well. On January 2nd they launched the Luna-1 probe to the Moon and almost reached the target. So reaching the Pass on February 1st with space technology of that time was a piece of cake.

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959. You have a too simplistic view of rockets at that time. For example, to launch on 1 February (even hypothetically!) some kind of rocket would have been needed, but there were none available until mid-February. And then, the preparations for a launch at that time took 7–10 days… Moreover, lunar launches were not a priority then. A series of tests of military rockets was being conducted. The setup and support for space and military rockets were very different…

[Senior Maldonado]

If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle.

This sounds too scientific, and I leave this topic to be discussed between you and Roscosmos. Obviously, Roscosmos does not know about such limitations and launches successfully space rockets with satellites to low Earth orbits from Baikanur. Second stages of those rockets fall in the North Ural's, south of Ivdel. You better hurry up to tell Roscosmos that they are doing wrong and impossible things. )

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959.

This is wrong. Next one was in June 1959.

Well, coming back to avalanches. When we talk about DPI we cannot avoid two topics: radioactive material found on Ravine-4 clothes and shock wave, mentioned by Vozrozhdenny in the case files. Alas, an avalanche cannot provide any of that. There is no sence to make an avalanche a top secret and camouflage it in the criminal case final statement. Central Committee of Communist party would had never sent Urakov to Sverdlovsk to stop the investigation abruptly, if prosecutors had been almost ready to accuse the avalanche. Nobody cares about avalanches' innocence, so the investigation team would had been allowed to continue their criminal case.

[Ziljoe]

I'm not sure the model of assuming it was an avalanche and those at the top knew it was , covered it up. That's not what's reported.

Dear Ziljoe! Unfortunately, I am unable to write here regularly, but allow me to comment on what you have written here… 1. Regarding the content (by the title) of the topic. Based on my own numerous on-site investigations, I must state unequivocally that in no local place where the events occurred could there have been any avalanches, cornice collapses, or anything of that sort for physical reasons. There are simply no conditions for this. All discussions on forums, in the press, and elsewhere are fabrications by those who have not been there and cannot even imagine the conditions even approximately.
2. In order to hide something, one must have a very significant reason. Can you (or anyone else on this forum) point to such a significant reason that it should be hidden for more than 65 years, especially considering that many more significant events have been published during this time? Perhaps it is logical to assume that there is nothing to hide, because there is nothing special?

The tent is found empty on the , 26 th , that's the first part of something being wrong and reviewing the need for an investigation. That has its own merit in seriousness and concern. Less than 24 hours later , 4 bodies are discovered . It would seem that this is written or communicated at least a day later than the the 26th of February . It can't be written before the 26th of February, it may be a wrong date by the author or the thought that it's appropriate to say the case started on the 26th in hindsight of finding the tent.

Let's clarify these points based on current legislation and the practice of investigating such criminal cases at the time…
1. As my old friend, who is a senior employee of one of the federal archives, told me, on the cover of a completed case, in the 'start' and 'end' fields, the law requires the dates of the earliest (or latest) document contained therein to be entered, even if it is incorrect. If a date error is discovered that does not affect the events themselves, a very lengthy and costly procedure is required to correct the date in the document. This procedure is not used in 99% of cases because it does not affect the results of the investigation.
2. A criminal case can be opened based on the fact of the event or by the decision of a prosecutor who has information about the event. Therefore, it does not matter when the case was opened: 26 or 28 February. Prosecutor Tempalov knew that the group had gone missing in his jurisdiction even before that. Therefore, the date he opened the case is his prerogative. No one can change this if the law is followed. In this case, the case was opened based on the discovery of the bodies when the prosecutor confirmed it himself.

The chronological order of what is in the text fits with what is being written about. I would expect errors and contradictions in a case to a certain degree as that's the nature of files and it is the best source of information we have. We can't dismiss the case files because of a difference in a days documented date? By two separate authors .

You are absolutely right. I provided the justification for this in the text above. Whoever writes what, everything must be done according to the law in force at the time. One must also consider the practice of conducting such investigations at that time. This adds to the understanding of what constitutes 'disagreements'. The attempt to 'correct' what happened on the principle of 'it should have been this way' is nothing more than fantasy. 'History does not tolerate the subjunctive.' (с)
 

It could be the other way round regarding Ivanov's article.  The publication is being used to sell . I doubt that lvanov even said half those things. The article is full of mistakes ,and , to put it politely, full of sensationalism. If !Ivanov knew something he could just say it but it's obvious that he didn't or his name is being used.

You are also completely right about this. One must take into account the time when Ivanov wrote his article (and many letters to the press and authorities). It was a time of complete recklessness in judgments, when many wanted to blame the past and align themselves with the 'new times'. Therefore, I do not believe that what Ivanov wrote was untrue; he simply 'shifted the emphasis' in a way that was convenient and 'pleasing' to the authorities of that time.
 

The case is as many , "unknown" . Over whelming force is the basic answer , it could be avalanche, crashed rocket , hurricane, infrasound but the truth is the investigation didn't find out what happened, not because it was covered up.

Yes, you are right that the reasons were not really explained because there was not enough knowledge at the time. I can clarify a lot here as a specialist in these fields of knowledge.
1. Avalanche. I managed to conduct extensive on-site research regarding the snow conditions at the tent location and the surrounding area. If you recall our correspondence with Alexander Puzrin (professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)) after he published an article on the 'Dyatlov Pass avalanche' in 2021, I wrote to him that there is a location not far from the tent site where the conditions for an avalanche are much greater than at the actual event site (the tent). Interestingly, a year later, there was a complex snow situation, and a landslide occurred exactly in the place I had pointed out, about 700 metres from the tent site. However, at the site where the tent was in 1959, there were no movements.
It's roughly the same as blaming a car driver for hitting a pedestrian if another car, with a different driver, hit a person on the adjoining street.

2. War Missile. If we stick to what actually happened, rather than the fantasies of amateurs, there were no missiles at that time and on that day that could have somehow reached the pass. I am a specialist in this field and can examine any fantasies in detail. They have absolutely no basis.

3. Hurricane. There are no wind speeds in nature that can carry a person far in any condition. This has been tested in practice at speeds up to 50 m/s (2.23 mph or kt). At such speeds, a person is knocked down onto the snow and may be dragged to the nearest obstacle (snow drift, rock, tree, etc.), and then pressed down without moving. The distance can be up to 10–15 m (30–40 ft), but no more… These are rather fantasies that have existed since the 1959 searches. They arose because the search participants at the time could not explain the reasons for leaving the tent…

4. I will not say anything about infrasound (neither - 'yes', nor - 'no') because almost none of the forum readers have enough knowledge to competently judge this physical phenomenon. As a result, many constantly repeat various myths and fakes, completely misunderstanding the physics and nature of the phenomenon.

Dear WAb ,first of all, thank you for your comments and constructive feedback. I respect your communication and when you guide me. I have never felt offended by your comments, so please continue when you can..

I wish to explain my approach to the DPI , although I assume you you will understand where I'm coming from and I suspect you are a few years ahead of me in knowledge and having been physically present at the location.

Unfortunately, I can not be there although I would like to view the location in the fist person. I totally understand the extremely low level of the possibility of an avalanche at the tent location, however, I do this because it seems to be the most logical explanation.

This is only an anchor of reality in my mind and plausible. Again I understand there's strong evidence that an avalanche it is just not possible , so I am somewhat grounded and also listen to those that say so..

I may have not communicated well enough or you are explaining my thoughts in your post, for clarification , I do not think the case files are fake or trying to hide anything.. everything is done by the book and I agree with you..

The point I make about tempolov statement from the 26th of February, about the criminal case being started is with regards to him( or others) not being able to pre fabricate the statement. My argument, or point is that this could not be written ,pre-discovery of the tent and bodies as no one could predict which and what bodies were found first. I don't aim this at you , more at other readers of the forum. There's a genuine chronological order of of events that couldn't be manipulated in the case files. To me , this makes the case files authentic and the witnesses.

I can only conclude that the investigation couldn't find anything, time and money was ticking on and they just wanted the case closed. The low level radioactive readings leaves a small question mark but also the reason for their existence having been in water doesn't fit with my understanding.

[WAB]

If it had changed course to fly towards the Dyatlov Pass, it would have disintegrated under the influence of Coriolis acceleration. These are basic considerations of the strength of thin-walled structural shells. There are very high speeds and too large a turning angle.

This sounds too scientific, and I leave this topic to be discussed between you and Roscosmos.

You did the right thing in this case. It's better not to talk about what you know little about

Obviously, Roscosmos does not know about such limitations and launches successfully space rockets with satellites to low Earth orbits from Baikanur. Second stages of those rockets fall in the North Ural's, south of Ivdel. You better hurry up to tell Roscosmos that they are doing wrong and impossible things. )

Dear Senior Maldonado! Either you are not carefully reading what I wrote, or you are trying to divert the conversation from what you do not want to discuss due to your limited familiarity with reliable information. I wrote: "Р7 (Russian designation) at that time did not fly from Tyura-Tam (Baikonur) in these directions." (с) The first launches from Baikonur to polar orbits (where the trajectory passes near (!!) the pass ) were only in the early 2000s, specifically in 2006. Therefore, until you manage to invent a time machine, talking about rockets over the pass in 1959 makes no sense. And the second stage falls during these launches (there were only 4) did not fall on the pass "south of Ivdel," (с) but more than 40–50 km away and 150 km from the pass. Why discuss in this topic something that happened in the wrong place and at a completely different time (50 years later)?

The next launch of R-7 to the Moon was on 12 September 1959.

This is wrong. Next one was in June 1959.

The launch on 18 June 1959 did not take place due to a rocket accident at takeoff. Let's be accurate in our statements…
You are using unreliable information
Or do you want to demonstrate how skillfully you can change the topic when you fail to say something necessary on the right subject?

Well, coming back to avalanches. When we talk about DPI we cannot avoid two topics: radioactive material found on Ravine-4

The maximum level of radioactivity was roughly equivalent to the radiation from 2 kg of potatoes (165 Bq). Do you want to talk about it?

clothes and shock wave, mentioned by Vozrozhdenny in the case files.

Boris Vozrozhdenny spoke about the equivalent impact on a person's body, not about whether such a wave actually existed. It was easier for him to explain the injury this way. As for the biomechanics of injury, it can now be discussed more precisely without invoking a "shock wave"(с) and other unnecessary entities. Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

Alas, an avalanche cannot provide any of that. There is no sence to make an avalanche a top secret and camouflage it in the criminal case final statement.

Are you changing the subject again? I think we have already said quite a lot about the avalanche...

Central Committee of Communist party would had never sent Urakov to Sverdlovsk to stop the investigation abruptly, if prosecutors had been almost ready to accuse the avalanche.

This is another blunder of yours.
1. The "Central Committee of the Communist Party"(с) did not send Urakov to Sverdlovsk, and could not have done so, since Urakov worked in the Prosecutor's Office of the RSFSR. Can your party "Renaissance" also send high-ranking prosecutors anywhere? In our system, each department worked (and still works) autonomously. If information is required, other entities simply request it and do not interfere in the work of other departments.
2. The investigation was closed exactly within the period stipulated by law: 2 months for the main investigation and 1 month for the additional investigation. It started on 28 February, was extended on 28 April, and concluded on 28 May. If each investigation were carried out indefinitely, none would ever be concluded. Moreover, in the case of the Dyatlov group, no criminal trace was found. One can invent a criminal trace, which is what some "investigators" are doing here. But why is this necessary for a just outcome?
3. Conversations about the "avalanche" began roughly 30–40 years after the events themselves. Especially even later.... In 1959 it was not even mentioned in the case or in the participants' search discussions. Why constantly stir up discussions about it again?

Nobody cares about avalanches' innocence, so the investigation team would had been allowed to continue their criminal case.

According to the law, the continuation of the case would only be possible if:
1. new and indisputable facts were discovered,
and
2. with the permission of the republican prosecution.
No facts or even reliable information were obtained, and obtaining permission from the republican prosecution would require such significant legal costs that it was not even requested.
So, what are we talking about?

[Senior Maldonado]

@WAB

I am glad that you like my ideas and my posts. )

The maximum level of radioactivity was roughly equivalent to the radiation from 2 kg of potatoes (165 Bq). Do you want to talk about it?

Not in this topic, as it is about snow attacks. I just want to mention that contamination level of 3 pieces of hikers' clothes was above sanitary norm for USSR's nuсlear workers. If Dubinina and Kolevatov had worked at a nuclear facility, they would have been asked to change their work clothes, as they had exceeded acceptable level of contamination. But they were not nuclear workes but rather winter hikers.

Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

I am always ready to practice my russian. Please, go ahead and provide the link.

This is another blunder of yours.
1. The "Central Committee of the Communist Party"(с) did not send Urakov to Sverdlovsk, and could not have done so, since Urakov worked in the Prosecutor's Office of the RSFSR. Can your party "Renaissance" also send high-ranking prosecutors anywhere? In our system, each department worked (and still works) autonomously. If information is required, other entities simply request it and do not interfere in the work of other departments.

My russian is not so good, but is not this document saying just the opposite?

[Axelrod]

ABOUT RADIOACTIVITY

I just turned on the dosimeter and applied it to three bags of potatoes (60-70 kg) standing in the dark hallway.
The dosimeter showed 11 microroentgens of gamma radiation.
In another part of the room, the dosimeter shows 10 microroentgens, but this value varies from measurement to measurement, so it's difficult to determine that 70 kg of potatoes create any radiation.

Bananas are probably more radioactive, but I don't have 70 kg of bananas in my apartment.

[amashilu]

WAB posts: As for the biomechanics of injury, it can now be discussed more precisely without invoking a "shock wave"(с) and other unnecessary entities. Would you like me to provide a link (unfortunately in Russian) where the mechanics of the injury are described in detail, including the specific locations at the pass where it occurred and the reasons why it happened?

Yes, WAB, please share this link with us.

[Senior Maldonado]

I just turned on the dosimeter and applied it to three bags of potatoes (60-70 kg) standing in the dark hallway.
The dosimeter showed 11 microroentgens of gamma radiation.
In another part of the room, the dosimeter shows 10 microroentgens, but this value varies from measurement to measurement, so it's difficult to determine that 70 kg of potatoes create any radiation.

I am a little anxious about WAB, as his potato is pure beta emmiter and 2kg of it provide contamination above sanitory norm for nuclear workers -- norm for external (not internal !) contamination. Is his farm close to a nuclear powerplant?

[sarapuk]

WAB has summed up this particular Post nicely. He has given the explanation needed.

[Missi]

If I may...

I've read most of this thread during the last day. First, I had to research, what exactly a snow cornice is. I didn't know before, that things like that existed. As far as I understood, the linked study and all of the conversation here focuses on snow slabs. What about the cornices?

I've reviewed the available photos on this site. I couldn't find one showing a cornice. Yet it seems the area is prone to building them, including the very spot of the tent site. Can anyone, who has actually been there confirm that?

Another thing that came to mind (and I know that's interfering with my last question): Climate is changing. How does that affect the weather around Dyatlov Pass? There are people arguing that they have seen slaps and avalanches near the site. But that only proves that those are possible today, not that the were or were not back then.

But then again: Even if there had been some snow related incident at the tent site (presuming the group erected the tent where it was found), it doesn't seem to explain, how the injured people could be that badly hurt and still make their way down the hill.

[Ziljoe]

If I may...

I've read most of this thread during the last day. First, I had to research, what exactly a snow cornice is. I didn't know before, that things like that existed. As far as I understood, the linked study and all of the conversation here focuses on snow slabs. What about the cornices?

I've reviewed the available photos on this site. I couldn't find one showing a cornice. Yet it seems the area is prone to building them, including the very spot of the tent site. Can anyone, who has actually been there confirm that?

Another thing that came to mind (and I know that's interfering with my last question): Climate is changing. How does that affect the weather around Dyatlov Pass? There are people arguing that they have seen slaps and avalanches near the site. But that only proves that those are possible today, not that the were or were not back then.

But then again: Even if there had been some snow related incident at the tent site (presuming the group erected the tent where it was found), it doesn't seem to explain, how the injured people could be that badly hurt and still make their way down the hill.

Hi Missi, nice to see you back.

I believe the word cornice comes from Italian for the word ledge . A cornice or ledge of snow can develop in many places , at different levels of elevations at the tops of mountains, at ravines or banks or even on flat fields if the conditions allow.

A snow cornice is more traditionally known to develop on high ridges on mountains where walking on this shelf means the climber could fall through or break that ledge.

There are two photos that show a cornice in the search photos , one being in the cedar area and the other I think is in the other valley which is large but at a lower elevation at a large ravine .

When the route of the hike had been shared there was warnings given about the area around the lake and this I believe was one of the areas that was identified as the most probable for an accident when the search started. There is a sharp ridge above the lake and there are modern photos showing a cornice.

The avalanches viewed in recent years are at two specific locations. It was also noted that within an hour there was no sign of the avalanche as the wind just blew the snow away. But that is probably only particular to that batch of snow and on that day. The two locations are the most obvious due to their steepness and lend themselves to a natural avalanche without humans causing them.

If climate change is affecting the snow fall and making less snow now, I would suspect there would have been more snow in 1959 and this more chance of avalanches .  The fact that the ravine was filled with snow up to three meters suggests that there was more snow in 1959 than currently, as I don't think any recent expeditions has found the ravine to be filled with snow. One of the known locations for an avalanche is about 500 metres from the tent on 1079 . They would have walked or skied below and across this area before they got to the location of pitching their tent.

There's several different interpretations/theories as to cornice/avalanche /slab combinations.

1)Slab on tent causing injuries and hikers descend to cedar and die from cold.

2)An avalanche of some sort with loose snow ( no injuries)on the tent and hikers descend to the cedar . There is a cornice( snow drift causing a ledge) at the ravine and some of the hikers fall into the ravine causing the injuries . ( I believe the ravine is before the cedar )

3) an avalanche of some sort at the tent ,hikers descend to the ceder. The ravine is selected as the shelter as it has snow drifts that have formed from a cornice and created a snow bridge and a naturally formed snow cave. This snow collapses on top of the hikers causing the injuries.

We could s take a number of different theories and swap them around with above scenarios, if it was a hurricane, ultrasound, wolverine,for example , and they leave the tent but all still fall at the ravine causing those injuries.

The ravine is an interesting feature in the landscape as it had to be navigated to get to the cedar , it was obviously clear of snow at the stream level or had about 30cm of snow cover as the ravine four and the den flooring are found under 2 meters of snow. There can only have been a snow cave formed by a cornice or the stream bed was empty of snow allowing for at least 2 meters space for the ravine four to be laid out  across the stream.

Again, from videos of recent expeditions , the ravine has not been completely filled with snow , neither has it been empty enough to allow 3 people to lie across the stream. ( I don't think) . It is truly bizarre.

[Missi]

Hi Ziljoe. Thanks for the warm welcome. :)

And thanks for the explanation. I already looked it up myself, but you confirm I understood correctly.
I must have missed those two photos, though. Gotta look again.

About the climate change, yes, I suspect it's less snow nowadays. But - and that's what I was referring to - the consistency of the snow changes as well. It's getting warmer, that affects the snow as well. I've played a little with perplexity (an AI), which in itself is no proof at all, but is gave me ideas. It suggested, that the higher temperatures make the snow wetter and therefore have it cling together better than back then. It's not a definite, it's just statistics. It's suggested, that mild days, that melt the snow surface and cold nights reduce the probability for snow slabs. The probability for cornices seems to be unaffected. But that is just what seems plausible to me, after a nice chat with an AI, that was why I asked if some of you guys know definite things. :)

The wind is something, I always felt people paid not enough attention to. In my opinion the snow found on the tent was just blown there and is far too less to suggest an avalanche of some kind. Yet as well as being blown on the tent, snow might have been blown away from the tent (yet, shouldn't it be completely flat on the ground then?). Same for the ravine, the snow might have traveled there after the hikers died. On the other hand, I myself marched across a patch of snow, I thought a trail under. Turned out: There wasn't and I found myself knee deep in powdery snow. I can imagine having such a patch of more than just a few cm depth. I'm not sure, how hard it would be to actually fall into one.

I like playing with theories myself - although I'm pretty hooked on Teddy's version by now. As for the combinations you mention:
1. I can't see, that the injuries happened at the location of the tent. If I remember correctly, some of the hikers were dead, just shortly after their injuries happened, they wouldn't have walked away. And they haven't been moved by the others, firstly because what was found suggests they walked by themselves and nobody was dragged or carried, secondly because why would they, if they were dead already?
The 2nd and 3rd variant may be indeed what happened, they seem plausible. At least referring to those immediate aspects. One would have to fit all the other aspects around the mystery to the theory.
You are right though, the ravine seems to be in front of the forest, when arriving from the location of the tent.

Something I am wondering for quite some time now (although this is not connected to the avalanche theories), is, if it's indeed not the case that the ravine was free of snow or just covered a little, but completely filled with snow. When watching glaciers, there are rivulets forming under the ice. Sometimes you have small streams flowing underneath the ice. Wouldn't something like this be possible also with snow on top? Maybe the stream was frozen at the time, the hikers died there, and only turned back to water later in the year, melting snow and leaving snow that was lying on top plus branches and dead hikers to slide further down?

[Ziljoe]

Here's the photos I'm talking about Missi , you probably have seen them at some point. They are what I would say comes under cornices or ledge.

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/15-020.jpg










Above, There are some more in this group of photos and they have probes. I think this is the next stream/ravine down from the ravine4/den area when they initially did a probe of the area and snow drifts in the first 3 days after finding the Yuris . The wind obviously can reach the area and creates these drifts that eventually connected in the den area. We can also the lake in the upper part of the photos , that's where cornices do form and the shadow from the sun.



I've never fully worked out this photos location but I think it is taken looking up towards the tent location and that it's actually the gully and stream going down from the slope. The den area would possibly just be out of frame to the left. Two things I note , one is we can see that water is running in the stream bottom left which means there will be snow bridges of some sort all the way up the gully . It's highly probable that the hikers fell through a small snow covering and got wet feet. This for me makes sense as to why there's a fire and burnt socks/clothing in and around the fire. Secondly, there's loads of cedar/fir trees to get branches from at low levels for a fire?.

[Missi]

Thanks for finding them. The first ones I obviously didn't take serious, because in my opinion they were only snow over rolling hills, not being to familiar with the area. But even if those are cornices, I highly doubt, those small ones can be dangerous enough to account for what happened.
The last one is different, I guess, it could be dangerous to a tent and even people, if being caught under one.

The second to last is interesting. No cornice there, as far as I can tell, but what you make of it is a good idea. Having stepped in cold water might be a reason to get your shoes of or to put them with your feet inside to close to a fire. I still doubt you'd put them close enough to get burn marks as found on Doroshenkos leg. But I've seen people in summer feeling cold enough to singe part of their shoes on a fire to get warm feet. I even managed to melt part of my rubber soles once, because I didn't pay enough attention to how hot the bowl of the fire place got and I had my feet on the edge of the metal.

[Axelrod]

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.

[Missi]

Maybe it looks different, when you see it in reality. In the video it seems to me as if it's only a thin cut in deep snow reaching down to a stream. Nothing I would venture down, because I wouldn't want to get my shoes and pants wet...
Thanks anyway for trying to illustrate.