Avalanche theory

[gunmat]

lets find out where this forum stands.

[Ziljoe]

Expand please.

[GlennM]

A slab slide is not a choice.

[eurocentric]

I voted Very Unlikely.

And I would never stand on one. 

[WinterLeia]

I’m highly skeptical of the avalanche or snow slab theory. The slope is just not steep enough.

[GlennM]

There were two locations presumed to be where the tent was on 1079. The second location identified in 2019 and corroborated by photo evidence, puts the tent on a steeper slope on which the hikers excavated a ledge for leveling their tent. It is entirely likely that a slab slip crushed the tent there. It is entirely likely the hikers left the tent assuming that if they dug out their tent immediately, continued snow movement would again cover the tent as well as themselves. They did the right thing to get away from the tent in those circumstances. Ironically, less experienced hikers would have probably stayed and dug back into the tent and survived the crisis.

[Arjan]

In case the complete Dyatlov group might have left the tent area on the slope - after a snow slab might had crushed the tent - at the beginning of a cold night, there is one certainty thas is caused by thermodynamica of the human body.

The group members might have been able to keep their body core temperature at 37 degrees celcius during 2 hours by moving and performing work like making the den and gathering firewood.

After two hour, the body core temperature might had started to drop 0.5 degrees Celcius every 30 minutes.

Around 4 hours after leaving the tent area, their body core temperature might had dropped to 33 degrees celcius and they might had been in profound ful hypothermia. The full group might had fallen in apathy.

Around 6 hours after leaving the tent area, all group members might had lost consciousness for the last time in their life.

Around 8 - 12 hours after leaving the tent area, the heart of every group member had stopped beating.

Around 18 hours after leaving the tent area, the process of rigor mortis had started to develop in the bodies.
Around 36 - 48 hours after leaving the tent area, the bodies had been solidified in ice.

There is one certainty: in case the group members might had left the tent area at the same time, outsiders had placed the group members in the postures as they had been found by both search parties. These outsiders had done this within a very tight time frame, because the raised arm of Yuri Kri indicates rigor mortis in the joints.

Only Zinaida had been found in a posture that resembles death by hypothermia, the other group members had been found in a postures that do not fit death by hypothermia.

[Ziljoe]

Arjan,Why do position of the bodies not resemble death by hypothermia?

[Arjan]

As far as I am aware, victims of death by hypothermia are - in general - found in a more crouched posture, similar like the 'man in snow suffering from hypothermia'.



An additional fact of physics is: gravity.

Gravity ought to cause that the raised arm of Yuri Kri and the body of Igor Dyatlov should have fallen flat on the ground, unless rigor mortis had already started to develop in the joints of their body.

Hardly anyone dies with a raised arm like Yuri Kri, unless he had been lifted under his armpits, while rigor mortis had already developed in the joints of this arm.
 
And Yuri Dor lying neatly face down next to Yuri Kri, has all the characteristics of being places next to each other by others:
- by Zinaida and Rustem in case no outsiders had intervened (see my series of the last two days of the Dyatlov group) or
- by outsiders within a tight time frame.

[Ziljoe]

Hypothermia is complicated. I agree that the to Yuri's may have been moved, buts that's possibley the rest of the group.

Dyatlov is in a classics hypothermia pose. Hypothermia victims don't end up in one position. I'm hesitant to supply pictures as the are destressing.

[Ziljoe]

What your photo show is staged.

[GlennM]

If the hikers assisted each other pre mortem, that is of no consequence. If the arguement is that they were manipulated by a third party, it is unfounded. What is important, rather what is essential is why they left the tent. They did so for self preservation. They did everything in controlled, measured steps according to their training. Nature is indifferent to this.

[WinterLeia]

The slope, according to G & P, is 28 degrees. That is still not steep enough. Just because it can happen on a 28 degree slope, doesn’t debunk the fact that it’s very rare for avalanches to occur on slopes with a less than a 30 degree angle. Plus, I do not agree with their calculation. All the pictures that they show as proof that avalanches and slab slides do happen are on much steeper slopes. Don’t believe me? Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth.
From the follow up report, in reference to the avalanche and the snow slab:

…”the slab was softer, the slope was steeper, it was not undercut from below and the trigger was probably different, too.”

That means the slope where the tent was set up was less than 28 degrees. And considering Dr. Borzenkov’s much more professional analysis, in which he uses tools and actually measures the slope where the tent was set up instead of presenting some blurry photos of other places where avalanches do occur that have steeper slopes, I find him far more credible and will go with his calculations of the slope being no more than 20 degrees.

In actual fact, though, there is an easy way to solve this. G & P just needs to go out and find a place where an an avalanche occurs and is not steeper than the slope upon which the tent was set up. They don’t do this because there probably is no such place. Their follow-up report can be summed up in two words: confirmation bias.

[GlennM]

We are reminded of two thiings. First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute. Secondly, it did happen . An avalanche did not happen. A slab slip did. The only debate is whether the hikers precipitated the event by prepping their tent site. This is significannt because the surviving relatives do not wish to accept that any ineptitude on the part of the expedition caused their demise. It is also clear that even in the aftermath, in then true Soviet fashion, several people lost their positions as scapegoats. Monetary restitution did not come, and in all probability, never will. The hikers were all given a decent burial.

[Arjan]

Dear Ziljoe,

The photo of the posture of Hypothermia - from the website Australiawide - is very probably staged: a living person has person has taken this posture.
I have purposely choosen a staged photo in order to avoid unnecessary distress of group members.

An additional indication that Yuri Dor and Rustem had been moved - after they had lost consciousness for the last time - is provided in the post mortem reports:
- Yuri Dor (found face down): 'Crimson purple post-mortem spots are located on the back of the neck, torso and extremities'
- Rustem (found face down): 'Postmortem lividity is present with blue-red spots abundantly located on the rear surface of the neck, torso and limbs'.

Personally I take into account that Rustem had been turned face down after the process of post mortem lividity had stopped and rigor mortem had started.

Personally I take into account that Igor - after loosing consciousness for the last time - had been carried by two person;
- one person (with both handpalms facing to the front) holding him under his armpits
- the second person holding him at his knees.

You are right victims of hypothermia don't end up in one position:
- some hide curled behind cupboard at relative mild cold conditions
- others are found in a posture like Zinaida.

On the other hand, not many victims had been found neatly next to each other like Yuri Dor and Yuri Kri.

It is hard to estimate the body postures of the four found in the ravine, because personally I take into account that they had already been partly?/fully? defrosted  in the ravine at the beginning of May. No information of post mortem lividity is mentioned on the post mortem reports, because it had already dissolved?

THis information is crucial for solving the case, because:
- if group members had left together from the tent area, non of the group members had been able to perform this kind of displacement of other group members
- if two (or more) group members had been displaced the bodies, these two (or more) group members had been far better protected against hypothermia than the others. In the area of the tent, cedar, ravine there had been only one place that had provided sufficient protection. This place is the tent. Personally I take into account that Zinaida and Rustem had survived this night - fatal for the others - in the tent. Other hint: the two flashlights had served a purpose as beacon and means of communication.

[Ziljoe]

Hi  Arjan,

Igor is in a position that other hypothermia victims have been found in.( I think it's called the boxer postion) .

I can't disagree about the two Yuri's possibly being moved shortly after death before freezing. They are in a relaxed position where gravity seems to have played it's part. Possible paradoxical undressing seems to fit but difficult to tell. Oddly enough a balaclava was reported to have been found at the ceder. Strange that it was not used and discarded.

There's also speculation that what is reported as Postmortem lividity is actually frostbite erythema. I think rigor Mortis happens before but we have the complexity of freezing/ frostbite thrown in to the mix along with thawing.

I have read ideas about the flashlights being used as beacons but that has a number of variables too.

I would say that they bodies lay where and how they fell. The two Yuri's may have been moved by others in the group after some sort of survival effort at the ravine/ ceder. Without some hard evidence of outsiders , I can only conclude hypothermia.

The Mansi were in the area within 1 km after the incident according to reports of trails when herding their moose/ deer.

[Partorg]

First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute

The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013 by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.
For example, the fastening parts of the “baskets” of ski poles, which at an early stage of the search, rescuers removed from the poles in order to use the latter as avalanche probes. These “baskets”, removed and thrown into the snow next to the tent, which was moved a couple of meters up, are visible in some photos. In addition to them, other small items were found that belonged to the Dyatlovites and apparently fell out of the Tent when it was moved. The 2019 Pokurorsky expedition ignored the exact coordinates of the Tent Place provided to them by the authors of the finds and determined its own, which is located approximately 115 meters north of the true one.

A survey of the slope profile above tent place carried out at 2.5 m intervals in the winter of 2014, shows a snow surface steepness of 16 to 20°. Methodological materials on safety in the mountains, reference and scientific literature on avalanches say that sometimes, under certain weather conditions, snow movement is possible even on slopes 15°

Of course this should not turn anyone from believing in super-secret missiles wandering over the Urals, in KGB death squads, in testing vacuum and neutron bombs, in the invasion of Arctic dwarfs and the outrages of yetis.

[Ziljoe]

Not heard the version of Arctic dwarfs yet!  thumb1but everything goes ...

[GlennM]

Partog, thank you for helping  me make my point. Appreciated.

[Axelrod]

In general, the reason for Kuryakov’s dissertation was that when the first rescuers arrived at the site, they did not take photo of the tent. Now only Karelin says (he is still alive) that there were no signs of avalanche presence.
In Chernyshov’s description (see his witness testimony) it seems to be written that there were ski poles around the tent.
How can there be an avalanche if ski poles stick out half a meter around the tent?
Tempalov saw that there were no traces of an avalanche there, but did not take photographs for the others.
And now Kuryakov can defend his dissertations...

A separate interesting question: if there was no avalanche in February 1959, then could it ever be there? This is the question of this topic. An avalanche is only needed there to explain the absence of Bigfoot (Yeti), gnomes and other things in restricted set of versions.

Returning to the topic questions: I don’t think that this place on Earth (with multiple stones and human intact place)  is one of those places where avalanches could occur at slope of 15 degrees.

[GlennM]

As I understand it, the hikers cut and levelled snow for their tent. This created a ledge. Their tent used the ledge to help block wind and driven snow. It was the buildup of snow on the lip of the ledge which triggered the slide. This means that there was a sufficient depth of snow for the hikers to make their "L" shaped cut. They did not dig into soil.  The vertical cut exposed slabs of different hardness. From the images of the tent, I too note the tent poles and ski poles standing. For me, this suggests a slumping rather than a sliding snow movement.


The angle which everyone wishes to debate appears related to the entire rise of the slope at elevation 880 on 1079. I think this misses the point.  Rather, it is the angle made between the top and bottom of the snow ledge which is critical. I contend that any cut of any height makes a slump a possibiliy. From the evidence of the rescuer photos and the hikers photos, there was a ledge of sufficient height to account for the snow that rested on the tent.

Again, I believe the hikers did a textbook response to their crisis. The problem was they underestimated the distance to the treeline, nor could they predict the duration of the bad weather. The clock ran out on them during which time all subsequent injuries were sustained.

[MDGross]

Yes, thanks, GlennM. Several years ago, a poster proposed that the snow removed to create the trench in which to pitch the tent fell back on the tent, or at least some of the snow. I think he was onto something and so are you. As I stated in an earlier post, perhaps some of the hikers thought that there was a possibility of an avalanche and when the snow ledge fell onto the tent that possibility seemed to be happening. So they fled the tent for the safety of the forest and the tragic outcome happened over a period of time.

[Ziljoe]

In the first protocol of 28/2/59 , it is written.

"Camp site is located on the northeast slope of mountain 1079 at the source of Auspiya river. The camp site site is located 300 meters from the top of the mountain 1079 on a slope of 30°. The campsite is a snow-leveled area with 8 pairs of skis at the bottom."

I have no idea if this is 30° as some others say it's as low as 15 degree's. But I wonder if there was fresh snow( as we have the foot prints) . If this fresh snow also built up above the edge of where they cut into the snow for a number of meters , could be 10 meters or 100 meters , there must be a tipping point where the load let's go , even if it's just 15 cm deep fresh snow , then we have about 5 meters
( width of cut into slope )  x 15  meters upwards , x 15 cm snow depth,pouring into the flattened area where the tent is. 

Not an avalanche as we think and know but a slide of snow on to the tent. Somewhat gentle  but enough to collapse the tent and frighten those inside.

I shall treat you to some high end graphics below. Self explanatory.....

[GlennM]

Of the 75 theories, this makes the most practical sense. No wonder Zolo did not write about it. There were better things to do.

[WAB]

First, the actual location of the tent is a mattter of dispute

====================
The location of the tent was established with an accuracy of ±5 meters in 2013

I have to disagree.
1. regarding accuracy. Even a very approximate calculation of the technical error in this kind of "measurements" on the spot, gives an error of +/- 10...12 m.
That is why different "clarifiers" have constantly diverging points of the final place.
This can be deliberately neglected, but it is unproductive to argue with the laws of physics (nature).
But it is not only that. If this point will "float" in the range of +/- 50 meters in the direction west - east, nothing will change. Natural conditions even in microscopic differences will be negligible. From the east the place "holds" the bend of the slope, to the west you can move 1...10 m without any changes in conditions. Therefore, numerous "refinements" are meaningless now and, as designers say, are "catching fleas". You can play this game to infinity, but why do it in the case of a tent site? There is an analogy in history: the Parisian Academy of Sciences stopped accepting the " PI " number refinement back in the 19th century. Because it doesn't make any sense, almost all technical calculations are done at 3.1415.
2 Regarding history. In 2013, this trio already had the coordinates of the place with an accuracy of +/- 10 meters, which was determined in 2008 and clarified in 2009. Silence about such information is a forgery. It is interesting that the winter refinement in 2014 gave a difference of 8 m, relative to 2008.
3. On-site coordination. Usually "previous" points are established by GPS coordinates, which were given by their authors. But the usual (not military!, and not geodetic!) gives an error of +/- 6 m in advance and deliberately put there. This is done by government agencies for military security reasons. That is why there are often disputes about "previous researchers" giving an inaccurate location.

by detecting some small objects that in 1959 could have been lost in the immediate vicinity of tent.

These finds cannot give too exact position of the site. Because the specific location of this find lies on the way from the place where the tent was dismantled to the place of sending by helicopter - not far from the obelisk to the memorial plate. It is clear at least because all small objects were thrown directly on the fabric of the tent. When it was carried by drag to the helicopter, they fell there quite densely. What does not happen when one throws without any special intention.

For example, the fastening parts of the “baskets” of ski poles, which at an early stage of the search, rescuers removed from the poles in order to use the latter as avalanche probes. These “baskets”, removed and thrown into the snow next to the tent, which was moved a couple of meters up, are visible in some photos. In addition to them, other small items were found that belonged to the Dyatlovites and apparently fell out of the Tent when it was moved.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's a lot of controversy about something like the KAN-delabre, but that's because it's a very obscure design for traveling back then, with a lot of insurmountable flaws. So there is no point in drawing any conclusions about it, as it can't change anything. This is in addition to the fact that none of the search participants identified it and all the time they were surprised by the irrationality of the design and inconvenience in operation.

The 2019 Pokurorsky expedition ignored the exact coordinates of the Tent Place provided to them by the authors of the finds and determined its own, which is located approximately 115 meters north of the true one.

I think that no one can give instructions or advice to the representatives of legal services, but if they did so, it only shows their illiteracy in working in such field studies. And also that they did not aspire to such tasks.

A survey of the slope profile above tent place carried out at 2.5 m intervals in the winter of 2014, shows a snow surface steepness of 16 to 20°.

This is where I want to be clear. The slope above the tent, from the top of the northeastern spur of the mountain to the tent site, according to the results of double measurements in winter (2014 and 2019) had an almost constant slope of 18 degrees. Only at the very top (2...3 meters along the formation) and below the tent the slope was steeper - up to 20...21 degrees. But these were also short sections.

Methodological materials on safety in the mountains, reference and scientific literature on avalanches say that sometimes, under certain weather conditions, snow movement is possible even on slopes 15° 

Yes, such a figure (as the most gentle!) is constantly mentioned by glaciologists and not only them. But avalanches (no matter what it is - "board" or fresh snow) are never "guided" by only one parameter. A whole bunch of such conditions is required there: snow condition, presence of voids - deep frost, roughness of the "substrate", difference in plasticity or fluidity of snow and other. I asked many people, including the respected Prof. Victor Popovnin (he was there with a group of prosecutors, TV and newspaper in 2019) to list all those parameters at which an avalanche can descend from a slope of 15 degrees in a given place. I didn't get an answer, apparently more time was needed to give a definite answer.

PS. There is a lot more to say here about all sorts of components of this phenomenon and details of the place, but unfortunately I do not have the opportunity to write here much and often.

[WAB]

I shall treat you to some high end graphics below. Self explanatory.....

Dear Ziljo, this picture is not entirely accurate. If I have the time and ability to work on the computer now, I will draw you a more accurate one.

[Ziljoe]

Thanks WAB.  Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent. 

You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.

[WAB]

Thanks WAB.  Obviously it's not accurate and I'm happy for you to add accuracy. It was a scribble on my phone. But it's the only theory I can put forward for the reason for them to leave the tent. 

You have been there , so your input is always welcome . Obviously I'm a little stubborn in my thinking but I have little else to go with and nothing else seems to give us an explanation as to why they left the tent.

Dear Ziljoe, thank you for your feedback.
As I promised, I present you with a picture of clarification. It can be seen at the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UUTldk64geeVY-cKZ_1XSLYcPvFOTWrQ/view?usp=sharing

I can add that the thickness of fresh snow there is never more than 30 cm (1 foot - I have a mistake in the picture, not 1 inch, but 1 foot!). and they did not bury the tent deep, but only leveled the site. as you can see in the picture on the link
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/cG0Vot7p3ZtAYA .

[Ziljoe]

Thanks WAB  .

[GlennM]

I have a feeling that these clarifications imply that while a movement of snow could ( and did) affect the tent and hikers, it was insufficient to cause the degree of personal harm seen on their remains. It was sufficient to cause the group to employ safety  practices out of an abundance of caution. Is this consistent with best practices of the time?  I believe so.

We need meteorological data for the weather conditions in that part of the Northern Urals at the critical times. This would reinforce the idea that snow buildup, a slide or slump and wind speed compromised the tent. Secondly, it lends credence to the necessity of the hikers to move downslope in two pushes to the tree line. It reinforces the idea that when the fire was lit at the cedar, the heat was rapidly carried off. It reminds us that you can do everything right and bad thingsnsrill happen.