Avalanche theory

[WinterLeia]

There only thing Occam’s Razorish about the avalanche theory, or slab slip theory, if you prefer, is that weather and nature-related theories don’t require as many assumptions as, say, murder or military testing

Quite right.  The most consistent with Occam's principle are those explanations of existing facts  that contain the fewest number of assumptions. That's exactly what I meant.

shouldn’t base your theory on the non-existent evidence.

None of the existing hypotheses has evidence. And most likely, they will no longer exist. All we can use in our search for truth are arguments.

Verdict on what caused the hikers to flee the tent: An unknown compelling force. That is the only theory that fits all evidence and requires the least amount of assumptions.

Thanks, Partog. You’re the only one who gets the point I was trying to make. While I don’t agree with the avalanche theory, I don’t have a problem with G & P believing it and writing a research paper, Nor do I have a problem with people agreeing with them and voicing their opinions. The absolutely frustrating thing about this case is that, other than Big Foot and alien visitors (in my opinion), no theory can be completely ruled out, although some obviously are far better than others. But that only bolsters my point. Since a lot of people who read research papers or books or watch documentaries about the tragedy do it because they have neither the time nor the inclination to deep dive into the source material, they are trusting you to present a fair and accurate case for your theory. True, it would always be way better to do the research for yourself. But many people don’t, and it doesn’t help anything to mislead the audience by not presenting both sides of the case and then let their audience be the jury. All it does is breed distrust. Especially is this the case, if you’re an expert in the field or the one responsible for putting the official report together, since opinions of such people carry far more weight than most everyone else. That’s the main reason why I tend to harp on the avalanche theory.

And I have to admit that after reading Teddy’s book, I was also skeptical of that theory. But I found her to be far more balanced and fair, in comparison to G & P. Even more admirably, she lets us discuss other theories on the forum, and thus provides the back and forth one needs to come to an informed decision, especially in the face of a supreme lack of evidence and not even knowing if what evidence we have relates to the tragedy.

[Marchesk]

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.

This sounds convincing, but there are a few objections:

1. There was no evidence of a snow slab having crushed the tent when it was found.
2. They were going to have the dig the tent out the next day anyway to survive longer term.
3. Why couldn't they have walked above the tent to deal with the excess snow layer?
4. In the hour or so it took them to hike down, they could have dug the tent out more than once until the snow was stable.

It's a decent theory, more likely than most, but there was no recording equipment or eye witness reports left behind. The evidence for a snow slab/slide is based on arguing that it could have happened where the tent was located.

I would have voted maybe or unlikely depending on how well the objections above can be met.

[Marchesk]

Thinking about it a little further, the two search members who found the tent were able to go inside and look around. The tent wasn't flattened like you would expect from a several ton snow slab sliding on top of it. Nor was it full of snow from a snow slide. The fact that it looks like they would have survived had they stayed at the tent makes this theory seem unlikely.

[Ziljoe]

I think there are a number of interpretations of what this avalanche is , or was . There are many different types of avalanche and some of these types of avalanche couldn't have happened at that location. However, it is not impossible that some sort of snow movement or collapse of snow couldn't have happened.

 There only needs to be a build up of fresh snow on the slope above the assumed trench they cut out to pitch their tent, that is, if we can assume that the last two photos are of the actual final tent location.

We can see from many of the photos and modern videos that the consistency of the snow varies from the top of hill all the way to the forest. Sometimes it's hard and it's like walking on ice and other times it's soft and people sink into the snow.

If we take the raised foot prints for example , we can assume that whoever made them, the snow at that time , in that area, was soft and the snow level would have been higher than the top of the remaining raised footprint. Later wind and snow blew that layer away before any searchers arrived .

So after three weeks of different weather conditions, a mass of freshly fallen or wind blown snow on the night of the incident could easily have been swept away. If it is the case that the trench was cut ,as depicted from the last two photos , then in my mind, it is possible for that cut in the slope to be a trigger/tipping point for snow above the lip of the trench to pour into that area.

I have no idea what kind of avalanche that would be called and I don't suspect it would be very big and certainly not big or strong enough to break bones. However, I think it would be big enough to collapse the tent and level the slope. I don't think it was a life and death situation ,if this is what occurred but it didn't need to be. Glennm explains that and I have to agree, the hikers just needed to think it was more serious than it actually was and to move away from further potential avalanche.

It is quite possible the hikers didn't know exactly where they were or had pitched their tent, it was late afternoon and from the photos the visibility looks poor. They knew there was steeper slopes in that area but could they be sure that they weren't sitting right underneath the steeper slopes? It is reported that they pitched in a safe, low risk area and everything was done by the book and that seems to be true.

But here's the difference, the difference is between knowing and not knowing, if you're in a tent and snow collapses the tent your sitting in , and you don't know or are now unsure of your actual location relative to the potential danger if you are in the wrong place , what do you do?

Most likely it is night with possible wind and snow, you are in a state of unpreparedness, clothing , equipment etc. One to two torches at best , do you head for the treeline to make fire until daylight to access the location or stay in a now , unknown not so safe location.

The reason to leave the tent may just be that , the unknown , "the unknown compelling force". 

[Marchesk]

But here's the difference, the difference is between knowing and not knowing, if you're in a tent and snow collapses the tent your sitting in , and you don't know or are now unsure of your actual location relative to the potential danger if you are in the wrong place , what do you do?

The search party didn't find the tent collapsed beyond what 3 weeks of being left out in the elements would have done. The tent was left standing enough to go inside. The ski poles were left in a vertical position, not pushed over.

Most likely it is night with possible wind and snow, you are in a state of unpreparedness, clothing , equipment etc. One to two torches at best , do you head for the treeline to make fire until daylight to access the location or stay in a now , unknown not so safe location.

Do you leave your equipment behind that will help you survive the night when it's a small snow slide? If they planned to return the next day, why leave the other flashlight on top of the tent? This is the same issue the wind theories have. The hikers may have been uncertain, and they may have been spooked, but it was suicide to leave their equipment behind.

Their seems to be disagreements regarding the weather that night, how cold and how stormy it actually got.

[Ziljoe]

But here's the difference, the difference is between knowing and not knowing, if you're in a tent and snow collapses the tent your sitting in , and you don't know or are now unsure of your actual location relative to the potential danger if you are in the wrong place , what do you do?

The search party didn't find the tent collapsed beyond what 3 weeks of being left out in the elements would have done. The tent was left standing enough to go inside. The ski poles were left in a vertical position, not pushed over.

Most likely it is night with possible wind and snow, you are in a state of unpreparedness, clothing , equipment etc. One to two torches at best , do you head for the treeline to make fire until daylight to access the location or stay in a now , unknown not so safe location.

Do you leave your equipment behind that will help you survive the night when it's a small snow slide? If they planned to return the next day, why leave the other flashlight on top of the tent? This is the same issue the wind theories have. The hikers may have been uncertain, and they may have been spooked, but it was suicide to leave their equipment behind.

Their seems to be disagreements regarding the weather that night, how cold and how stormy it actually got.

I don't think the tent was left standing, only the front pole and entrance, the tent was flat and covered with hard snow and they dug/scraped their way in . They did not go in through the entrance. I'm not sure about the ski poles, there is movement off the vertical in the photos though. I think one pair of skis were vertical a small way from the entrance.

It's not the question of it being a small snow slide and leaving equipment behind. These are obvious questions , to answer that is to question the hikers mind set. To leave equipment behind and seek shelter in a forest is not necessarily suicide , when you fear worse may happen on the slope.

 They might not have left the the flashlight on the tent, it might have been dropped in the confusion or hung at the entrance as the toilet light and then fallen as they cut their way out.

Totally agree about the weather conditions and temperatures but we know their must have been some fresh or recent snow because of the raised foot prints. These raised foot prints only occur in certain conditions.

[Marchesk]

I don't think the tent was left standing, only the front pole and entrance, the tent was flat and covered with hard snow and they dug/scraped their way in . They did not go in through the entrance.

Going back and reading the case files:

Slobtsov says he looked in the tent on Feb 26th, noticed it was torn, and the various items lying around the tent. He mentions the snow being removed before saying what he saw inside. Lebedev said he thought the tent was open, noticed it was torn and cut, and mentioned that Slobtsov, Sharavin and Ivan had brought some things back from the tent the previous evening. And that maybe they had torn the tent. Also that the middle of the tent had fallen. A cut ski pole was found inside. Could it have been used to hold up the middle of the tent? Leb doesn't say. Slobtsov though the snow was blown onto the tent by the wind, and then hardened.

I wonder if the search party would have considered a snow slide or slab likely had someone explained it to them, since they were there to examine the tent as they found out, at the exact location it was at.

It's not the question of it being a small snow slide and leaving equipment behind. These are obvious questions , to answer that is to question the hikers mind set. To leave equipment behind and seek shelter in a forest is not necessarily suicide , when you fear worse may happen on the slope.

Their state of mind is a crucial question. The entrance was at least left standing, so it was still possible for Dyatlov to brave grabbing a few things from there. They could have also walked a few meters away and waited a few minutes to see if there was further movement. Leaving their equipment behind is always a sticking point with the various theories when they have a choice.

IThey might not have left the the flashlight on the tent, it might have been dropped in the confusion or hung at the entrance as the toilet light and then fallen as they cut their way out.

They did have a second flashlight, which was dropped on their descent for whatever reason.

ITotally agree about the weather conditions and temperatures but we know their must have been some fresh or recent snow because of the raised foot prints. These raised foot prints only occur in certain conditions.

The slab theory does depend on the weather being a certain way, since it's agreed that under normal conditions, those don't happen on the slope the tent was pitched.

[Ziljoe]

I agree they say it was torn , I am still unsure if they looked in the entrance or went in from the cuts that were already made in the side of the tent , or if they themselves made the cuts even bigger to get inside. I am aware that they claim to have taken some belongings on the first night of discovery.

There is some discussion about the ski pole being used to support the middle of the tent and is a possibility.  I tend to favour a snow slide as opposed to snow slab but whatever the exact avalanche scenario could be , I think some kind of snow build up is the most likely.

Another problem we have is the snow level would have gone up and down over these three weeks. So what the tent location looked like on the night of the incident would be different to when the tent was found I would think.

Where we now believe the tent location is, we know that there's no danger of an avalanche, but that's with our hindsight and knowledge, the hikers at that time may not have known what we do now. That's the twist , we are seeing it all from a different perspective as to the hikers , we have satalite data, maps, snow fall data, angles of the slopes , drone footage, 60 years worth of new avalanche data etc. It certainly looks like an avalanche would not be the cause but if they had a tiny snow collapse on their tent in the dark and the wind was blowing , they were unsure exactly where they pitched their tent on a mountain side , do you stand about waiting with a single torch in low visabilty exposing oneself to the weather and the potential of a full blown avalanche making everything ten times worse?

The raised footprints is a warning sign of avalanches apparently, something to do with temperatures apparently.

Other than being forced out at gun point, I too struggle with any theory that fits , I can't see why leave the tent without more clothing or tools.