rock pile landslide

[Osi]

This drawing depicts a possible view of Mount Kholat in summer. We know that over the years, due to erosion caused by wind and temperature differences, the rocks at the summit have broken down and flowed downstream, forming mounds of various sizes. These mounds accumulate over time and accumulate energy due to an obstacle, always ready to continue sliding downward if triggered.


A view of Kholat in winter. It is generally covered by a snow depth of 150 cm meters or less. The mounds are completely buried under the snow.


If the group had decided to pitch their tents in Kholat, they would have had to cut the snow at a 90-degree angle, digging more than a meter into the ground to create a flat surface and protect it from the wind blowing from above. Even if they had dug as deep as a meter, the angle would have made it impossible to reach the ground. My theory is that they encountered a large boulder at the beginning of this cut. They must have thought that if they could lift this boulder, they would find a comfortable place below

[OLD JEDI 72]

[ahabmyth]

These theories and replies just keep getting better.


Here we can see from a recently taken pic of near the campsite on Kholat Syakhl that a snow or rock slide is more than likely the cause of the disaster. 


 

[Axelrod]

My relative Moisey Akselrod was very keen on the avalanche theory.
But I am not him, and I have other thoughts. Don't be such a fool as he.
I don't understand how much of this avalanche theory is reality or fantasy.

Yes, in winter avalanches usually occur where there is a rockfall in the summer.
Sometimes in summer there are avalanches and a rockfall together. That's what happened in Krasnaya Polyana last summer, two people were hurt.

It seems to me that the landslide or avalanche theory in the previous messages was caused by the incident with the Dyatlov group, which is the only way to explain it. But if the cause of the incident was another, some insurmountable force, then the question arises - is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences, or there can be no avalanche there at all. That is, an avalanche in that place is so unrealistic that this avalanche theory is just a fantasy.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you for the illustration Osi, I think something similar but perhaps with a snow  cornice higher up. The slope above the tent  reaches at least 25 degrees.

[OLD JEDI 72]

My relative Moisey Akselrod was very keen on the avalanche theory.
But I am not him, and I have other thoughts. Don't be such a fool as he.
I don't understand how much of this avalanche theory is reality or fantasy.

Yes, in winter avalanches usually occur where there is a rockfall in the summer.
Sometimes in summer there are avalanches and a rockfall together. That's what happened in Krasnaya Polyana last summer, two people were hurt.

It seems to me that the landslide or avalanche theory in the previous messages was caused by the incident with the Dyatlov group, which is the only way to explain it. But if the cause of the incident was another, some insurmountable force, then the question arises - is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences, or there can be no avalanche there at all. That is, an avalanche in that place is so unrealistic that this avalanche theory is just a fantasy.

1) First, calling people "fools" because they see merit in an avalanche is out of line. Your own relative, Moisey Akselrod, pushed the avalanche-cold line early on. Disagreeing is fine. Dismissing people as fools is not.

2) About your phrasing: when you write "is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences," that reads like machine translation. Same with "Death will find a reason." If that is a regional idiom or literal translation, say so up front to avoid sounding like you are baiting everyone. I'm hoping it's just a translation issue.

3) You now float an "explosion to excavate a pit" idea that supposedly destabilized deeper layers and caused a delayed slide. There is zero evidence the Dyatlov group carried blasting materials or saltpeter. No case-file inventory, no diary note, no labaz note, no witness mentions it. The site inspection lists cameras, money, documents, and ordinary kit, not explosives. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

4) Even on your own terms the explosion story raises more problems than it solves. Where is the crater, the blast signature, the residue, the singeing, or shrapnel-like damage to the canvas or nearby snowpack. Searchers and investigators did not report anything like that. If you want this taken seriously, show physical traces or primary documents, not anecdotes from unrelated memoirs.

5) Your temperature line is off. Dry slab avalanches do not require thaw. Small wind-loaded slabs on modest slopes can release hours after a cut step, a cornice load, or a localized trigger. That aligns with a mundane scenario where a small slab hits part of the tent, injures a few, and forces a night evacuation. Unsexy, yes. Physically realistic, also yes.

6) The group's own diary shows it was warm earlier that day, then obviously it was not. Strong temperature inversions were reported in that period. When they left the tent it might have felt mild compared to valley air, but the combination of wind, exposure, and falling temperatures would still freeze them fast. Misjudging how quickly conditions turned is not proof against an avalanche. It is what people do in real storms.

7) "They would have written about it in the diary" is not an argument. The last entries stop before the night in question. Survivability choices under shock, injuries, wind, and darkness do not turn on whether a diary had a final paragraph.

8) Avalanche may not be anyone's favorite, but it remains the simplest working model that fits a lot of stubborn facts, from injury patterns to later field observations of slab activity near the site. That does not make other ideas impossible. It does make "fantasy" an unfair label for people who find the avalanche explanation persuasive.

9) Bottom line: debate the evidence, not people. If you want to overturn avalanche, bring verifiable traces or primary documents. If language is getting in the way, say so and folks will cut you slack. But calling believers "fools" while leaning on an unreferenced explosion story is not the flex you think it is.

[Falcon73]

Wouldn't there have been at least on rock still on the tent?

[Ziljoe]

My relative Moisey Akselrod was very keen on the avalanche theory.
But I am not him, and I have other thoughts. Don't be such a fool as he.
I don't understand how much of this avalanche theory is reality or fantasy.

Yes, in winter avalanches usually occur where there is a rockfall in the summer.
Sometimes in summer there are avalanches and a rockfall together. That's what happened in Krasnaya Polyana last summer, two people were hurt.

It seems to me that the landslide or avalanche theory in the previous messages was caused by the incident with the Dyatlov group, which is the only way to explain it. But if the cause of the incident was another, some insurmountable force, then the question arises - is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences, or there can be no avalanche there at all. That is, an avalanche in that place is so unrealistic that this avalanche theory is just a fantasy.

1) First, calling people "fools" because they see merit in an avalanche is out of line. Your own relative, Moisey Akselrod, pushed the avalanche-cold line early on. Disagreeing is fine. Dismissing people as fools is not.

2) About your phrasing: when you write "is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences," that reads like machine translation. Same with "Death will find a reason." If that is a regional idiom or literal translation, say so up front to avoid sounding like you are baiting everyone. I'm hoping it's just a translation issue.

3) You now float an "explosion to excavate a pit" idea that supposedly destabilized deeper layers and caused a delayed slide. There is zero evidence the Dyatlov group carried blasting materials or saltpeter. No case-file inventory, no diary note, no labaz note, no witness mentions it. The site inspection lists cameras, money, documents, and ordinary kit, not explosives. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

4) Even on your own terms the explosion story raises more problems than it solves. Where is the crater, the blast signature, the residue, the singeing, or shrapnel-like damage to the canvas or nearby snowpack. Searchers and investigators did not report anything like that. If you want this taken seriously, show physical traces or primary documents, not anecdotes from unrelated memoirs.

5) Your temperature line is off. Dry slab avalanches do not require thaw. Small wind-loaded slabs on modest slopes can release hours after a cut step, a cornice load, or a localized trigger. That aligns with a mundane scenario where a small slab hits part of the tent, injures a few, and forces a night evacuation. Unsexy, yes. Physically realistic, also yes.

6) The group's own diary shows it was warm earlier that day, then obviously it was not. Strong temperature inversions were reported in that period. When they left the tent it might have felt mild compared to valley air, but the combination of wind, exposure, and falling temperatures would still freeze them fast. Misjudging how quickly conditions turned is not proof against an avalanche. It is what people do in real storms.

7) "They would have written about it in the diary" is not an argument. The last entries stop before the night in question. Survivability choices under shock, injuries, wind, and darkness do not turn on whether a diary had a final paragraph.

8) Avalanche may not be anyone's favorite, but it remains the simplest working model that fits a lot of stubborn facts, from injury patterns to later field observations of slab activity near the site. That does not make other ideas impossible. It does make "fantasy" an unfair label for people who find the avalanche explanation persuasive.

9) Bottom line: debate the evidence, not people. If you want to overturn avalanche, bring verifiable traces or primary documents. If language is getting in the way, say so and folks will cut you slack. But calling believers "fools" while leaning on an unreferenced explosion story is not the flex you think it is.

?

[OLD JEDI 72]

My relative Moisey Akselrod was very keen on the avalanche theory.
But I am not him, and I have other thoughts. Don't be such a fool as he.
I don't understand how much of this avalanche theory is reality or fantasy.

Yes, in winter avalanches usually occur where there is a rockfall in the summer.
Sometimes in summer there are avalanches and a rockfall together. That's what happened in Krasnaya Polyana last summer, two people were hurt.

It seems to me that the landslide or avalanche theory in the previous messages was caused by the incident with the Dyatlov group, which is the only way to explain it. But if the cause of the incident was another, some insurmountable force, then the question arises - is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences, or there can be no avalanche there at all. That is, an avalanche in that place is so unrealistic that this avalanche theory is just a fantasy.

1) First, calling people "fools" because they see merit in an avalanche is out of line. Your own relative, Moisey Akselrod, pushed the avalanche-cold line early on. Disagreeing is fine. Dismissing people as fools is not.

2) About your phrasing: when you write "is an avalanche something that can be confused with consequences," that reads like machine translation. Same with "Death will find a reason." If that is a regional idiom or literal translation, say so up front to avoid sounding like you are baiting everyone. I'm hoping it's just a translation issue.

3) You now float an "explosion to excavate a pit" idea that supposedly destabilized deeper layers and caused a delayed slide. There is zero evidence the Dyatlov group carried blasting materials or saltpeter. No case-file inventory, no diary note, no labaz note, no witness mentions it. The site inspection lists cameras, money, documents, and ordinary kit, not explosives. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

4) Even on your own terms the explosion story raises more problems than it solves. Where is the crater, the blast signature, the residue, the singeing, or shrapnel-like damage to the canvas or nearby snowpack. Searchers and investigators did not report anything like that. If you want this taken seriously, show physical traces or primary documents, not anecdotes from unrelated memoirs.

5) Your temperature line is off. Dry slab avalanches do not require thaw. Small wind-loaded slabs on modest slopes can release hours after a cut step, a cornice load, or a localized trigger. That aligns with a mundane scenario where a small slab hits part of the tent, injures a few, and forces a night evacuation. Unsexy, yes. Physically realistic, also yes.

6) The group's own diary shows it was warm earlier that day, then obviously it was not. Strong temperature inversions were reported in that period. When they left the tent it might have felt mild compared to valley air, but the combination of wind, exposure, and falling temperatures would still freeze them fast. Misjudging how quickly conditions turned is not proof against an avalanche. It is what people do in real storms.

7) "They would have written about it in the diary" is not an argument. The last entries stop before the night in question. Survivability choices under shock, injuries, wind, and darkness do not turn on whether a diary had a final paragraph.

8) Avalanche may not be anyone's favorite, but it remains the simplest working model that fits a lot of stubborn facts, from injury patterns to later field observations of slab activity near the site. That does not make other ideas impossible. It does make "fantasy" an unfair label for people who find the avalanche explanation persuasive.

9) Bottom line: debate the evidence, not people. If you want to overturn avalanche, bring verifiable traces or primary documents. If language is getting in the way, say so and folks will cut you slack. But calling believers "fools" while leaning on an unreferenced explosion story is not the flex you think it is.

?

What is confusing? I'm responding to someone's comment.

[Ziljoe]

Sorry OJ. The ? Wasn't meant to mean anything, I was just marking the comment in my replies to go over later( home life was interrupting)  . I agree with a lot that you have said.

[Axelrod]

It's a long story, but I'll just say it...
The pictures in this thread look like a presentation of some commercial project that will "take off".
But you can rest assured. The startup won't take off, there won't be an avalanche, and the stones won't roll.
Sleep peacefully in a tent in this place.

[Ziljoe]

It's a long story, but I'll just say it...
The pictures in this thread look like a presentation of some commercial project that will "take off".
But you can rest assured. The startup won't take off, there won't be an avalanche, and the stones won't roll.
Sleep peacefully in a tent in this place.

They are illustrations of what might have happened. We can agree or disagree.

Your religious argument may have some merit if it was Jehovah witness cold calling and trying to hand out "the watchtower" leaflet. They may have cut the tent to escape.....

[Osi]

Where are the rocks? The main factor that destroyed the tent was the snow layer. The dislodging of a few large rocks or the disruption of their stability must have paved the way for a snow slide hours after entering the tent. This sliding snow plate certainly contains rocks of all sizes. They would have hit the tent and drifted down 15 or 20 meters, depending on the slope. If the snow had stopped in the tent, rocks of all sizes would have been visible in the tent. A rapid flow crushed the tent occupants and then lost its force 20 meters down. There may have been three or four large rocks in this layer. Even if they had been exposed, they would have been covered by the blowing snow over a few days, and they would have gone unnoticed. Even if there were a few rocks on the tent that made evacuation difficult, they could have been thrown down by able-bodied individuals who had left the tent. I am an amateur interested in these and similar mysterious events. I have no commercial interest.

[ahabmyth]

Wouldn't there have been at least on rock still on the tent?

Yes of course there would and the rocks would still be there unless people have been taking the rocks 300klm for souvenirs (the bigger the better). 
There is much rubbish implied on this site by people who are not too bright, so I am afraid you have to make allowances for this.



                                                                   Common sense isn't all that common.

[sarapuk]

This drawing depicts a possible view of Mount Kholat in summer. We know that over the years, due to erosion caused by wind and temperature differences, the rocks at the summit have broken down and flowed downstream, forming mounds of various sizes. These mounds accumulate over time and accumulate energy due to an obstacle, always ready to continue sliding downward if triggered.


A view of Kholat in winter. It is generally covered by a snow depth of 150 cm meters or less. The mounds are completely buried under the snow.


If the group had decided to pitch their tents in Kholat, they would have had to cut the snow at a 90-degree angle, digging more than a meter into the ground to create a flat surface and protect it from the wind blowing from above. Even if they had dug as deep as a meter, the angle would have made it impossible to reach the ground. My theory is that they encountered a large boulder at the beginning of this cut. They must have thought that if they could lift this boulder, they would find a comfortable place below

Looks too steep

[sarapuk]

These theories and replies just keep getting better.


Here we can see from a recently taken pic of near the campsite on Kholat Syakhl that a snow or rock slide is more than likely the cause of the disaster. 


 

This aspect has been thoroughly covered on this site.

[sarapuk]

Thank you for the illustration Osi, I think something similar but perhaps with a snow  cornice higher up. The slope above the tent  reaches at least 25 degrees.

But you must know that this aspect has been thoroughly covered before.

[Ziljoe]

Thank you for the illustration Osi, I think something similar but perhaps with a snow  cornice higher up. The slope above the tent  reaches at least 25 degrees.

But you must know that this aspect has been thoroughly covered before.

Yes Sarapuk, as has every other aspect. However, for me , some sort of avalanche is still the most probable looking at the overall picture.

The slope is steeper above the tent , winds can deposit snow in different ways at different times in different year's.

Even this year, as perhaps every year , people look to see if an avalanche is possible with various experiments . It was interesting to see the build up of snow on the replica tent from 2025 . With the right conditions I would suspect the tent could have been collapsed by snow , quite easily to be honest. Whether that could be called an avalanche or not , I don't know, but it's one step closer to the possibility. It took many years to observe an avalanche on 1079 to the south only 600 meters away.

The avalanche theory is one that can keep being observed at least and the hikers only needed to think they were in danger to move away.

[Ziljoe]

These theories and replies just keep getting better.


Here we can see from a recently taken pic of near the campsite on Kholat Syakhl that a snow or rock slide is more than likely the cause of the disaster. 


 

This aspect has been thoroughly covered on this site.

I think this might be satire sarapuk.

[ahabmyth]

Thank you for the illustration Osi, I think something similar but perhaps with a snow  cornice higher up. The slope above the tent  reaches at least 25 degrees.

But you must know that this aspect has been thoroughly covered before.

Yes Sarapuk, as has every other aspect. However, for me , some sort of avalanche is still the most probable looking at the overall picture.

The slope is steeper above the tent , winds can deposit snow in different ways at different times in different year's.

Even this year, as perhaps every year , people look to see if an avalanche is possible with various experiments . It was interesting to see the build up of snow on the replica tent from 2025 . With the right conditions I would suspect the tent could have been collapsed by snow , quite easily to be honest. Whether that could be called an avalanche or not , I don't know, but it's one step closer to the possibility. It took many years to observe an avalanche on 1079 to the south only 600 meters away.

The avalanche theory is one that can keep being observed at least and the hikers only needed to think they were in danger to move away.

And Mansi throwing snowballs had nothing to do with it.

[ahabmyth]

It's a long story, but I'll just say it...
The pictures in this thread look like a presentation of some commercial project that will "take off".
But you can rest assured. The startup won't take off, there won't be an avalanche, and the stones won't roll.
Sleep peacefully in a tent in this place.

They are illustrations of what might have happened. We can agree or disagree.

Your religious argument may have some merit if it was Jehovah witness cold calling and trying to hand out "the watchtower" leaflet. They may have cut the tent to escape.....

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha As one does, hiding behind curtains or waving "not in" signs.

[Axelrod]

Well, you understand. that the phenomenon of avalanches and rockfalls in this place is unconfirmed, that is, unscientific.
Moreover, science and practice say that avalanches and rockfalls occur only in other places, under other conditions.

Yes, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who believe in what they are not witnesses.
No one has seen someone descend from heaven to earth and perform inexplicable miracles.

No one has seen an avalanche in this place. No one has seen a rockfall in this place.

All these are phenomena of the same nature. This is a matter of faith in something unimaginable.

This is just the nature of people. Some people are Jehovah's Witnesses, other people are witnesses of an avalanche, and still others are witnesses of a rockfall. People want to believe in something. My relative Moses believed in an avalanche, my other relative believed in Jehovah. This is our genetic misfortune.

I already have a premonition that I will now face the same aggressive reaction, as if I were to object to something to Jehovah's witnesses.

[ahabmyth]

Well, you understand. that the phenomenon of avalanches and rockfalls in this place is unconfirmed, that is, unscientific.
Moreover, science and practice say that avalanches and rockfalls occur only in other places, under other conditions.

Yes, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who believe in what they are not witnesses.
No one has seen someone descend from heaven to earth and perform inexplicable miracles.

No one has seen an avalanche in this place. No one has seen a rockfall in this place.

All these are phenomena of the same nature. This is a matter of faith in something unimaginable.

This is just the nature of people. Some people are Jehovah's Witnesses, other people are witnesses of an avalanche, and still others are witnesses of a rockfall. People want to believe in something. My relative Moses believed in an avalanche, my other relative believed in Jehovah. This is our genetic misfortune.

I already have a premonition that I will now face the same aggressive reaction, as if I were to object to something to Jehovah's witnesses.
 Go for it Axelrod, I am sure we only mean to jibe at Jehovah's witnesses , its a national pastime making fun of them as we know their narrative. Anyone taking offense at statements you may make must have rocks in their head. I am sure OJ and Ziljoe wont mind.

[ahabmyth]

This drawing depicts a possible view of Mount Kholat in summer. We know that over the years, due to erosion caused by wind and temperature differences, the rocks at the summit have broken down and flowed downstream, forming mounds of various sizes. These mounds accumulate over time and accumulate energy due to an obstacle, always ready to continue sliding downward if triggered.


A view of Kholat in winter. It is generally covered by a snow depth of 150 cm meters or less. The mounds are completely buried under the snow.


If the group had decided to pitch their tents in Kholat, they would have had to cut the snow at a 90-degree angle, digging more than a meter into the ground to create a flat surface and protect it from the wind blowing from above. Even if they had dug as deep as a meter, the angle would have made it impossible to reach the ground. My theory is that they encountered a large boulder at the beginning of this cut. They must have thought that if they could lift this boulder, they would find a comfortable place below

Looks too steep