Avalanche theory...again

[GlennM]

Currently on Dyatlov Pass.com is an article revisiting the avalanche theory. As I read it, I thought, " unknown compelling force" as the official explanation. I believe that the conclusion is that one and all were doomed by one and one only unknown compelling force. Does this ring true?

Next, I am thankful and impressed by the quality of the article and the carefully photographed images of the tent and surrounds. However, we are not afforded an glance regarding the angle from tent to the peak of 1079.  Perhaps the incline is sufficent to propel a slide of snow. Finally, for me at least, an avalanche and a slab slip are different phenomoma. The 2025 winter expedition makes it clear that by cutting a leveling ledge for the tent, the explorers may slice through distinct densities of snow. The spindrift snow accumulated on the 2025 tent may represent a sufficient weight of material to collapse one side of the tent.

That said, I am reminded about the saying that in rough seas, you stay with the ship since it can take more punishment than you can. It would take a whole lot of punishment for me to abandon my only shelter in the snow and plod downhill all that way for a fire when I could just pile on more clothes and wait it out with my friends.

[Axelrod]

The main task of the prosecutor's office and the investigation was to identify criminal offenders in order to isolate them from society.
Although, most likely, in those years, it was not isolation that was used, but the death penalty.
The investigation was unable to identify such offenders.

As you understand, the investigation cannot punish avalanches, water, wind, bears, yetis, fireballs. So, it was not interesting for the investigation to clarify the cause.

[Ziljoe]

There seems to be a number of claims being reported from the latest expedition, all quite interesting.

From what I can understand but some of it may be incorrect as it's through the press. However, what I have read .

The snow was over 1.5 meters at the tent site and was even deeper above the tent location , perhaps 4 meters.

It was -20 outside the replica tent but -2 inside the tent without a stove.

It was easy to navigate in the dark towards the forest but not so easy going back up.

People walked in similar clothing layers of Zina , and I think it was done with no bad outcomes.

It was noted that some of the rocks/stones on the slope were dangerous hazards if one was to fall.


The replica tent had considerable build up of snow after being there for a couple of days ( someone is arguing that there is a snow break in this photo. )

We can see how fresh snow could build up on and above the tent?

[SURI]

@ GlennM

Thanks for the link. I probably wouldn't have noticed it, I don't follow everything.

The avalanche didn't drive them out of the tent. I agree with E. Tumanov about the injuries. I also think that the 4 in the ravine died on the spot and were then unable to move. This rules out Zolotaryov having a pencil or notepad in his hand. Same Slobodin. It's inconceivable that Rustem would have had an accident in a ravine or near a cedar tree and still managed to climb the slope. Simply not. I also agree that Lyudmila survived 2 at the cedar, but not only her, but everyone in the ravine.

[Osi]

Most of the archived avalanche footage; It was caught by chance on the security cameras of hotels in ski resorts or obtained from the helmet cameras of athletes skiing wildly. In fact, places that have been monitored for decades and have no avalanche danger cause avalanches due to skiers cutting the snow with their sleds, and thus we have the chance to watch live avalanche footage.
There is a second situation. In many different regions of Turkey; When you put your car in neutral and release the handbrake on a road that slopes 30 degrees towards the hill, the vehicle starts to climb up the hill. If you cannot maintain control, acceleration increases. You can go astray.  Although it may seem against the laws of physics for this vehicle to climb the ramp without engine power, when we look at the geography of the region from a general perspective (from the satellite), it is seen that the place that looks like a hill when examined on site actually has a downhill terrain when viewed from a certain height. I don't know if a similar study has been done on the slope measurements of Kholat Mountain with local observations, but I think that places with no avalanche potential according to local measurements may have hidden slopes that will cause avalanches with certain triggering factors.

[SURI]

I have nothing against avalanches, but in this case, tourists wouldn't reach the ravine with injuries. The seriously injured would have to be carried, and that would be evident from the footprints. And if they had only been frightened, they wouldn't have ended up at the cedar and in the ravine. Something else had driven them out of the tent.

[Axelrod]

Even if there was an avalanche impact on the tent, they got out of the snow safely. Such a moment is later worthy of writing in the diary about the incident experienced. It is difficult to imagine that tourists dragged someone one and a half kilometres away. Kolmogorova is the closest to the tent (1 km), but her posture does not indicate that she was dragged dead and abandoned.

Avalanche descent on gentle slopes occurs best at the temperature of snow melting. You can compare it with defrosting a refrigerator. This is unlikely to happen with cold temperatures. How can this be combined with death from the cold at minus 30 or minus 50? Further, such moments occur more often on ski slopes groomed by skiers than in the wild, especially in places dotted with stones. Even in the city, you can observe a slippery path in the place where people walk, and there is loose snow around it.

A tent without a stove cannot be compared with a comfortable wooden house. There is a temperature difference of 3-5 degrees. To imagine that you were warm in a tent, and outside the tent you immediately freeze, is naïve. Some maps of the death of hikers are the inept notions of people who imagine that they themselves would have died long ago in this situation. In addition, the hikers were not the first day on the hike, and were on other hikes. We have no data on any cold snap on February 1-2. Rather, on the contrary, it was a warming compared to the previous (and subsequent) days.

[GlennM]

Axelrod, good thoughts and post. Yes, they all left for a reason. They left footprints. Some tried to return. I like the idea of Nature, not Man which gave them a single choice to make. Nobody wrote what or why they did in a diary.

[Ziljoe]

We can see in the photo of the replica tent that snow is building up on the tent , if this was prolonged snow fall it could easily hold back snow untill it gave way and let a small field of fresh loose snow cover the tent .

Whether we like it or not , or the mundane fact that the reason for leaving the tent was due to some kind of snow avalanche, it is still the highest probability out of all factors along with wind, storm and bad nature condition's.

We have snow , hard snow, fresh snow , soft snow . We have a slope with a tent on it , we have ridge where the tent was cut into the slope , we have a steeper slope above the tent sight . I believe the snow above the tent location was measured at over 4 meters! deep this year !? ( I need to double check).

Winds could easily have blown snow over the ridge ,that then built up above the tent . One part goes and the rest slides down due to gravity. ( I have no idea what the obsession with a gigantic cloud type avalanche that those that argue against an avalanche keep trying to dismiss ). Any discrepancy in the snow around the tent and what it looked like on the 1st of February, then had 3 weeks to change and be blown away . Snow was blown away from the raised footprints, that's a fact. At the time of whoever walked down the slope , they walked on fresh snow that had a hard layer of snow below it .

The snow level was higher 3 weeks earlier at that part of the slope when the searchers found the foot prints , from which I can only conclude, that any part of the slope could have had more or less snow on it. Likewise, this latest  2025 expedition reports deeper snow than other years on the slope and we can see snow building up on the tent.

Wind / snow / tempature can change  within hours , the wind and snow can hide an avalanche within hours , this has been reported and seen at 1079. What the searchers found on the 26th , snow levels included , would not be what was there on the 1st of February 1959.

Even the  torch on the tent could have been buried ,then, three weeks of ice snow could have removed the snow from on top of it like the footprints .

Things we know

1), the snow can be over 1.5 meters deep at the tent location and deeper above the tent.

2)It can be minis 20 degrees outside the tent but -2 inside .

3)The can navigate the slope in poor light .

4)Zinas clothes were sufficient and you can walk in socks.

5)The various stones on the slope can be dangerous and could cause injury.

[Axelrod]

«Death will find a reason» (Смерть причину найдёт) - is an ironic regional expression (in Siberia) about an unexpected, strange, absurd death.

In the story with the Dyatlov group, it turns out that death found a reason and a mechanism, and people during last 66 years cannot find this reason, or they find the wrong reasons.

[Marc]

The avalanche theory is reasonably plausible, but I have many doubts.
If indeed some of the serious injuries occurred in the tent due to an avalanche, then the journey to the cedar and beyond must have been undoubtedly difficult. Considering the extent of the chest injuries of some of the group members, these people were not walking on their own, let alone how long they were able to live. So we have several group members who have suffered fatal injuries, and those who carry them decide to move hundreds of meters away from the tent without even trying to get basic clothes, boots, and equipment to survive ( it's worth imagining how difficult it must have been to get the seriously injured out of there!) Eventually they do make an attempt to reach the tent (possibly hours later) but by then it's too late...
I find this scenario hard to believe.

Let's assume that there was an avalanche, but no major injuries were caused by it, but they occurred where the bodies were found - in the ravine. In which case the avalanche theory is little bit more plausible. But we have to remember  - then two unfortunate events occurred in a relatively short period of time - an avalanche in the tent and several people falling into the ravine later. How likely is that!? And again, they got out under the avalanche, but they couldn't put on boots or warmer clothes in a hurry. It may have been a terrible experience, but was it so terrible that they had to face another death - a journey into the cold night?
I have my own strong doubts about this scenario too.

One more thing - there was a man who is reasonably experienced and could foresee avalanche danger. He was there with the hikers on that fateful night. This man was Igor Dyatlov. Unlike us, he had an overview that we will never have and I believe  that he made a reasonable decision. If there had been a serious avalanche risk, the tent would not have been there.
Human error, hasty decision, later staged tent location, etc. - everyone can open many more mental rabbit holes, but I personally prefer not to.

[GlennM]

I have thought about the abandonment of the tent sans ski boots. I recall that the skis were laid beneath the tent as a foundation, so without skis, the boots would be diffucult to hike in. I personally don't think that life threatening injuries happened at the tent. The footprints to the cedar would be different.

At the cedar, it seems clear they had a fire, but it was insufficient. It is possible that injuries happened in the attempt to make a more robust fire.

I can envision s situation where the group splits at the cedar with some trying to regain the tent, others sheltering in the ravine. I personally think hypothermia is the root cause of their injuries, including the most severe ones.

Igor would have had a successful hike and all would advance in certification. I know forester Rempel advised against the route, but perhaps a slab slip in aggressive wind was considered unlikely. The fact that they made so little progress at the end suggests that it was as bad as Rempel said. At that point, they are faced with a choice which is to accept defeat or press on. I personally think they were compelled to try. Further, I think that nobody in the group wanted to be " that one" who whines and torpedoes the expedition. Hubris did them in.

[Marc]

Hypothermia was most likely the cause of death for several members of the group, yes. And many injuries probably occurred from slipping, falling, breaking branches, making fire, etc. People were in a desperate situation. Bodies in the ravine were found much later and who knows what temperature and weather conditions they were all this time. But It is hard to believe that all injuries can be explained by this.

The worsening weather and the desire to definitely finish the hike, despite everything, could have caused haste and carelessness, which turned into a chain reaction of events. I don't believe it, but it's a realistic possibility. I have thought about this too, but it still does not explain the abandonment of the tent in such a way.
This is the key to the Dyatlov Pass incident.

[Ziljoe]

Hypothermia was most likely the cause of death for several members of the group, yes. And many injuries probably occurred from slipping, falling, breaking branches, making fire, etc. People were in a desperate situation. Bodies in the ravine were found much later and who knows what temperature and weather conditions they were all this time. But It is hard to believe that all injuries can be explained by this.

The worsening weather and the desire to definitely finish the hike, despite everything, could have caused haste and carelessness, which turned into a chain reaction of events. I don't believe it, but it's a realistic possibility. I have thought about this too, but it still does not explain the abandonment of the tent in such a way.
This is the key to the Dyatlov Pass incident.

This has always been the discussion, why did they leave the tent, and why leave without more clothing and equipment.

We have to conclude that some environmental thing happened that prevented them from doing so or there was outsiders.

There's basically only three options,

1) avalanche, wind, ultrasound , animal etc, something natural to the environment

2) outsiders

3) it was staged.

[OLD JEDI 72]

4. Someone or a couple of someones got into a brawl inside the tent. Insiders.

[Ziljoe]

4. Someone or a couple of someones got into a brawl inside the tent. Insiders.

Ok, fair enough, but there's a limit to a fight given the circumstances. Let's roll with the concept.

Why , if there was internal conflict did it end up with all the group down at the ravine?

1.5 km from the basic survival equipment?.

( I am assuming this is what you're point is old jedi?, No out siders )

[OLD JEDI 72]

4. Someone or a couple of someones got into a brawl inside the tent. Insiders.

Ok, fair enough, but there's a limit to a fight given the circumstances. Let's roll with the concept.

Why , if there was internal conflict did it end up with all the group down at the ravine?

1.5 km from the basic survival equipment?.

( I am assuming this is what you're point is old jedi?, No out siders )

Because Igor was the boss and the boss was being second-guessed. The stove was his, the radio was his, the leadership role was his. And then something happened in the tent. It could of been as something as mundane as a couple of hikers passing gas and giggling like the kids they basically were; smelly feet, smelly fannies, smelly pits, or someone could have been "getting some." Does anyone else find it weird that during the autopsy they checked on the virginity of the girls? The report was that their virginity was intact but their passageways would permit a pinky? After the initial shock of the creepy factor, I wondered if the doctor was trying to tell us something?

This was a level 3 certification which none of them had obtained and Igor was turning it into a level 4 (I realize there's probably no level 4 just being sarcastic) with his overdoing it. I think I mentioned that I liked the theory of Zolotaryov's Meltdown with Igor and Zolo switching places basically. I believe Igor had a meltdown, knifed the tent from the inside, and forced everyone down the hill to the woods where they probably were complaining they wanted to be.

Can I prove it? Nope, nothing is really provable however your statement of "There's basically only three options" is quite the qualifier so I thought I would mention another option.

[amashilu]

Does anyone else find it weird that during the autopsy they checked on the virginity of the girls? The report was that their virginity was intact but their passageways would permit a pinky? After the initial shock of the creepy factor, I wondered if the doctor was trying to tell us something?

In an autopsy where the pathologist is tasked with determining whether or not the cause of death involved violence or trauma, yes, s/he checks every part of the body. The only thing he was trying to "tell us" in this case was that there did not appear to be sexual violence.

[Ziljoe]

4. Someone or a couple of someones got into a brawl inside the tent. Insiders.

Ok, fair enough, but there's a limit to a fight given the circumstances. Let's roll with the concept.

Why , if there was internal conflict did it end up with all the group down at the ravine?

1.5 km from the basic survival equipment?.

( I am assuming this is what you're point is old jedi?, No out siders )

Because Igor was the boss and the boss was being second-guessed. The stove was his, the radio was his, the leadership role was his. And then something happened in the tent. It could of been as something as mundane as a couple of hikers passing gas and giggling like the kids they basically were; smelly feet, smelly fannies, smelly pits, or someone could have been "getting some." Does anyone else find it weird that during the autopsy they checked on the virginity of the girls? The report was that their virginity was intact but their passageways would permit a pinky? After the initial shock of the creepy factor, I wondered if the doctor was trying to tell us something?

This was a level 3 certification which none of them had obtained and Igor was turning it into a level 4 (I realize there's probably no level 4 just being sarcastic) with his overdoing it. I think I mentioned that I liked the theory of Zolotaryov's Meltdown with Igor and Zolo switching places basically. I believe Igor had a meltdown, knifed the tent from the inside, and forced everyone down the hill to the woods where they probably were complaining they wanted to be.

Can I prove it? Nope, nothing is really provable however your statement of "There's basically only three options" is quite the qualifier so I thought I would mention another option.

Ultimately anything could have happened old jedi , but I can't see how one hiker against nine would drive them all away from the tent and equipment. Only with the threat of a gun by an individual but even then we have 8 Vs 1.

I think they were all quite strong willed enough to fight back against being bullied down the slope I'll prepared. If there were smells , I'm sure they would all be used to it from experience.

I'm sorry again old Jed but I wasn't replying to you and I didn't mean to upset you with my "quite the qualifier" statement of 3 options.

The foot prints don't suggest a fight down the hill , I can't see how any individual would have the power to force them down to the treeline or for what purpose. The actions at the ceder display joint activity to survive where at least more than one person was cooperating freely with another.

[GlennM]

Ziljoe correctly writes.
There's basically only three options,

1) avalanche, wind, ultrasound , animal etc, something natural to the environment

2) outsiders

3) it was staged.

By items
(3)Staged: difficult to do by walking backwards uphill with tent and supplies and using same footprints to descent to forest. If the tent was elsewhere, it would have to be discovered first. That would be a difficult find the tent in the forest. Based on subsequent events and criminal investigation, there was no reason to obfuscate the tent location. Nothing to be gained.

(2) Outsiders: did not approach the tent, evidenced by no footprints. If Outsiders lured the DP9 out of the tent, did that require the DP9 to cut their way out of the tent? It is far more controllable to have them exit by the front flap in an orderly way.

(1) Natural causes. if the deceased or the tent had detectable scent, spoor or animal body parts found animals may be likely.
Weather related. Evidence of high wind scouring and raised footprints detected. Evidence of deep snow in the ravine suggests stormy conditions

All behavior is motivated. I find no motivation for staging, no evidence for conspiracy. If weather was the cause, then I assess the " big 4". Breathing, bleeding, broken bones, burns. Breathing (or suffocation hazard) diffuculty from collapsed tent by snow seems most probable. All other injuries and fatalities are subsequent events after leaving the tent.

[OLD JEDI 72]

I'm so GlAd wE HaVE YOU To Co-Sign ZiLjOe's OutRaGeous sTAteMENTs, gLeNn! <---That's my sarcasm font.

What was that you were saying before about the credibility of the forum? And what exactly does "basically only" mean?

[Ziljoe]

Hi old Jed,

I'm so GlAd wE HaVE YOU To Co-Sign ZiLjOe's OutRaGeous sTAteMENTs, gLeNn! <---That's my sarcasm font.

What was that you were saying before about the credibility of the forum? And what exactly does "basically only" mean?

You believe someone broke wind ,or the women were unhygienic and this was the cause to a fight amongst the group that spilled down to the treeline .


You said that liked mysteries and trying to solve them and if I remember correctly  you are over 50 years old?.

I'm sorry but I am assuming that something's frustrating you . I am not trying to offend you or dismiss your ideas , it is difficult to gather everything we know or what we think we know about the case . Reading the case files and remembering everything is quite an effort but worth it , especially if you want to put forward that there was an internal fight and explosion.

Others might agree or disagree with some or all of your theory but when you have done your research you might change people's minds?

I don't think GlennM was co-signing anything, rather , shepherding the focus back to the case and the topic . I think perhaps he hinted at this to both of us in an earlier post.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Hi old Jed,

I'm so GlAd wE HaVE YOU To Co-Sign ZiLjOe's OutRaGeous sTAteMENTs, gLeNn! <---That's my sarcasm font.

What was that you were saying before about the credibility of the forum? And what exactly does "basically only" mean?

You believe someone broke wind ,or the women were unhygienic and this was the cause to a fight amongst the group that spilled down to the treeline .


You said that liked mysteries and trying to solve them and if I remember correctly  you are over 50 years old?.

I'm sorry but I am assuming that something's frustrating you . I am not trying to offend you or dismiss your ideas , it is difficult to gather everything we know or what we think we know about the case . Reading the case files and remembering everything is quite an effort but worth it , especially if you want to put forward that there was an internal fight and explosion.

Others might agree or disagree with some or all of your theory but when you have done your research you might change people's minds?

I don't think GlennM was co-signing anything, rather , shepherding the focus back to the case and the topic . I think perhaps he hinted at this to both of us in an earlier post.

Hm, not sure what my age or hobbies have to do with anything unless it's a dig at perceived immaturity for bringing up the B.O potential. And no, nothing is frustrating me other than occasional constipation. It just seems odd that Glenn is always right there to prop up your statements.

"Ziljoe correctly writes. There's basically only three options:"
That's co-signing. And I'm assuming he was doing it to take the p155.

I am not trying to offend you, Glenn, or anyone for that matter. I was just looking for some clarity from the finality of your statement that there can be only 3 options when there are quite more. If you would have added, "in my opinion," I wouldn't have even blinked. As far as what I believe, there is no definitive theory I am beholden to as it is always evolving because of the complexities of the two separate events. It's like choosing my sports brackets.

Has anyone here ever written a book, then retracted what they believed? I refuse to stick to one theory or rather I will always be open to new ones and have no burning desire to be "right."

As mentioned, I am not trying to troll or offend anyone, I am just an extremely blunt Yank.

[Ziljoe]

Old Jedi,

I think you should read your own posts . GlennM is his own person although we share a common thought that the incident was most likely caused by some weather related incident. I have also favoured the wolverine, Glennm has disagreed and shared his thoughts, Glennm has also explored rockets and gas along with other theories, everyone has.

I am trying to narrow the possibilities and I was hoping Marc would share or evolve the debate as it was his post that prompted my post and not yours. Also the title of the thread is regarding an avalanche.

I don't think GlennM was taking the "p***" and you have mentioned this before.

When I say" basically" it means ;

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation

It is just a thought process, you could quite easily have interjected saying you wanted to add a fourth possibility and ran with it . Internal fighting has been discussed before and if I remember correctly it didn't lead anywhere but there does exist examples of fallouts on other hikes .

I'm not sure if the radio they took was Igor's, building the stove was nothing new and wasn't a new amazing invention as other tourists did the same , yes he may have built it as some hot tenters do today out of scraps.

If you read the kramlin expedtion report from front to back it will give an insight about the nature of tourism, stoves, Mansi signs, how they organised the hike,food logistics , people that couldn't make a particular hike as they had other duties or had to work ,exactly the same as the dyatov's .

So, "in my opinion" there doesn't seem to be anything unusual about the Dyatlov hike. They planned their trip, people were invited , some choose this hike and other students choose other hikes and others couldn't attend,They were late and made mistakes, missed busses/trains, stayed in a school and chatted to the students, they bought things along the way and talked of romance , films and met new people , everything that they have done before on other hikes . The danger of the hike is it's distance from immediate help , camping in a tent in the snow in itself is not particularly hazardous, many tourists have done such things , in every country,and in the 1950's it was a positive pastime including today . Many people do such hikes without getting a graded certificate but like the scouts and students for example, organisations create a pathway for experience and recognition of skills.

Obviously, everyone has scrutinized every angle of the Dyatlov pass but nothing new has stood out other than  teddy's approach in the last couple of years , in fact teddy's book would be the best place to start.

Perhaps start your own thread and list all the possible reasons for leaving the tent ? Remember to add IMO though.

[Marc]

The thesis of internal conflict is easier to build, since we have no traces of intruders, avalanches, etc.

Can anyone tell us if there are any more serious indications that the internal climate within the group was bad and getting worse? We know that Dubinina was relatively moody, which is also indicated by her diary. This may tell us something and at the same time nothing.
Of course, it can be assumed that even if there were very strong dislikes in the group, they did not want to describe it very much in their personal diaries. Humanly understandable.

Ok, something unlikely happens and the conflict erupts into chaos on that fateful night. Some members of the group leave the tent, probably those who tried to build a den, along with the two who were found under the cedar. Because these last two are very poorly dressed and it is highly likely that only something very terrible forced them to leave the tent. Later, they are followed by those who initially stayed in the tent, including Igor Dyatlov (with Kolmogorova and Slobodin). Later, these three are the ones who try to get back to the tent, but hypothermia becomes fatal. Why did they follow? And why did they underestimate the possibility of hypothermia..? And can something so sadistic (to let some of their comrades leave practically without clothes) really be done by group members among themselves?

This is just one scenario out of endless options. It seems like fantasy to me.
In fact, all the scenarios have been discussed enough on this forum and I have nothing to add to them. The evidence is all we have, but the devil may be hiding in the small details that we will never know.

[GlennM]

Welcome Marc,
The challenge with any theory is the requirement that it addresses all the evidence and makes the fewest suppositions. All theories to date are lacking one way or the other. The altercation theory essentially runs the clock backwards. They have hurts, so their cause must be... of course it gets down to probability.

While the orderly trace of footprints does not support hurried abandonment of the tent, they also do not tell whether all left enmasse or in groups. However, if they left the tent through the side slices and eschewed additional handfuls of gear, there is no reason to suppose they did not leave as a single group. As combatants, that seems unlikely.

For me, the weather related explanation has more validity than other explanations. That said, snow blows and melts. There is nothing that persists, save the effects of cold on the remains.

If you want to twirl down on the conflict idea, it will be good to remember that knives are more effective than fists. They had both at their disposal.

[Marc]

It is likely that the theory proposed somewhere in this forum is quite close to the truth. But who knows which one!?

Killing by other people would explain such a tent abandonment, but that is only one possibility among many. There is no evidence and the reality may have nothing to do with what I believe.

Interesting case anyway.

[OLD JEDI 72]

Old Jedi,

I think you should read your own posts . GlennM is his own person although we share a common thought that the incident was most likely caused by some weather related incident. I have also favoured the wolverine, Glennm has disagreed and shared his thoughts, Glennm has also explored rockets and gas along with other theories, everyone has.

I am trying to narrow the possibilities and I was hoping Marc would share or evolve the debate as it was his post that prompted my post and not yours. Also the title of the thread is regarding an avalanche.

I don't think GlennM was taking the "p***" and you have mentioned this before.

When I say" basically" it means ;

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation

It is just a thought process, you could quite easily have interjected saying you wanted to add a fourth possibility and ran with it . Internal fighting has been discussed before and if I remember correctly it didn't lead anywhere but there does exist examples of fallouts on other hikes .

I'm not sure if the radio they took was Igor's, building the stove was nothing new and wasn't a new amazing invention as other tourists did the same , yes he may have built it as some hot tenters do today out of scraps.

If you read the kramlin expedtion report from front to back it will give an insight about the nature of tourism, stoves, Mansi signs, how they organised the hike,food logistics , people that couldn't make a particular hike as they had other duties or had to work ,exactly the same as the dyatov's .

So, "in my opinion" there doesn't seem to be anything unusual about the Dyatlov hike. They planned their trip, people were invited , some choose this hike and other students choose other hikes and others couldn't attend,They were late and made mistakes, missed busses/trains, stayed in a school and chatted to the students, they bought things along the way and talked of romance , films and met new people , everything that they have done before on other hikes . The danger of the hike is it's distance from immediate help , camping in a tent in the snow in itself is not particularly hazardous, many tourists have done such things , in every country,and in the 1950's it was a positive pastime including today . Many people do such hikes without getting a graded certificate but like the scouts and students for example, organisations create a pathway for experience and recognition of skills.

Obviously, everyone has scrutinized every angle of the Dyatlov pass but nothing new has stood out other than  teddy's approach in the last couple of years , in fact teddy's book would be the best place to start.

Perhaps start your own thread and list all the possible reasons for leaving the tent ? Remember to add IMO though.

Fair enough, for the most part I believe I use other terms that mean the same as IMO; such as perhaps, or maybe. But to say there are ONLY three options is where I get moody. I do completely agree with your statement "While the orderly trace of footprints does not support hurried abandonment of the tent, they also do not tell whether all left enmasse or in groups."

Absolutely!
Only that if they didn't leave together, the next group(s) followed the same path.

[OLD JEDI 72]

The thesis of internal conflict is easier to build, since we have no traces of intruders, avalanches, etc.

Can anyone tell us if there are any more serious indications that the internal climate within the group was bad and getting worse? We know that Dubinina was relatively moody, which is also indicated by her diary. This may tell us something and at the same time nothing.
Of course, it can be assumed that even if there were very strong dislikes in the group, they did not want to describe it very much in their personal diaries. Humanly understandable.

Ok, something unlikely happens and the conflict erupts into chaos on that fateful night. Some members of the group leave the tent, probably those who tried to build a den, along with the two who were found under the cedar. Because these last two are very poorly dressed and it is highly likely that only something very terrible forced them to leave the tent. Later, they are followed by those who initially stayed in the tent, including Igor Dyatlov (with Kolmogorova and Slobodin). Later, these three are the ones who try to get back to the tent, but hypothermia becomes fatal. Why did they follow? And why did they underestimate the possibility of hypothermia..? And can something so sadistic (to let some of their comrades leave practically without clothes) really be done by group members among themselves?

This is just one scenario out of endless options. It seems like fantasy to me.
In fact, all the scenarios have been discussed enough on this forum and I have nothing to add to them. The evidence is all we have, but the devil may be hiding in the small details that we will never know.

I tend to overthink it and make it more complicated than it really is because of the two separate events. What I do know is Geologists carry dynamite, and orbs were seen so I work backward from there. I also know that if anyone was slacking in their duties they were not even allowed around the fire to warm up, so I see cruelty in that. And who's to say they wanted their clothes? It could have been still relatively warm and they could have been indigent and said to heck with this.

[Ziljoe]

The thesis of internal conflict is easier to build, since we have no traces of intruders, avalanches, etc.

Can anyone tell us if there are any more serious indications that the internal climate within the group was bad and getting worse? We know that Dubinina was relatively moody, which is also indicated by her diary. This may tell us something and at the same time nothing.
Of course, it can be assumed that even if there were very strong dislikes in the group, they did not want to describe it very much in their personal diaries. Humanly understandable.

Ok, something unlikely happens and the conflict erupts into chaos on that fateful night. Some members of the group leave the tent, probably those who tried to build a den, along with the two who were found under the cedar. Because these last two are very poorly dressed and it is highly likely that only something very terrible forced them to leave the tent. Later, they are followed by those who initially stayed in the tent, including Igor Dyatlov (with Kolmogorova and Slobodin). Later, these three are the ones who try to get back to the tent, but hypothermia becomes fatal. Why did they follow? And why did they underestimate the possibility of hypothermia..? And can something so sadistic (to let some of their comrades leave practically without clothes) really be done by group members among themselves?

This is just one scenario out of endless options. It seems like fantasy to me.
In fact, all the scenarios have been discussed enough on this forum and I have nothing to add to them. The evidence is all we have, but the devil may be hiding in the small details that we will never know.

I tend to overthink it and make it more complicated than it really is because of the two separate events. What I do know is Geologists carry dynamite, and orbs were seen so I work backward from there. I also know that if anyone was slacking in their duties they were not even allowed around the fire to warm up, so I see cruelty in that. And who's to say they wanted their clothes? It could have been still relatively warm and they could have been indigent and said to heck with this.

I Don't think geologists carry dynamite , the explosive expert will be separate from a geologist and they work in parallel. I know two geologists and lived with 5 . Never once did they claim to use explosives or be trained to do so? A hammer maybe...but that's it.

Using explosives in winter at negative temperatures at night would  only add risk to those using explosives for geologists .

The hickers were not reporting any geological features other than taking some samples from north 2 . They  were allowed around the fire because they made one. Who stopped them from being around a fire?