As the anniversary of the great mysterious tragedy approaches, I will remember 2025 as a year lackluster in terms of discussion, research, and debate, with the case fading into obscurity due to an ongoing war.
Looking at the arguments of researchers who persistently reject the avalanche or snowslide theory:
1) The slope wasn't steep enough.
2) The tent poles were still standing. The tent hadn't been swept away and was partially upright.
3) No snow debris was found to indicate an avalanche.
4) If there had been an avalanche, the footprints would have been covered.
I would like to offer some counter-arguments to these four main arguments. 1) Although the slope of Kholat towards the forest generally averages 15-20 degrees, it is a fact that locally, to the right, left, and uphill of the area where the tent was pitched, there are slopes of 25-30 degrees. In general, due to the slope, an avalanche reaching down to the forest on Kholat's slope is not a concern. However, no one should definitively rule out the possibility of a 100-meter-long slab sliding down the steep slope above the tent. To determine if there is a snow slab phenomenon, you can only catch a new snowfall the next day, before the snow hardens, on top of the hardened snow layer. The group could not cross the pass when they encountered a dense snow cover. They reduced their weight and headed towards the hardened slope. As you know, snow falls only a few times during the winter, not every day. I am one of those who think that the group encountered the second serious snowfall in the Urals region while climbing the peak. Large snowflakes falling in calm weather with temperatures of -7, -10 degrees and a wind speed of 10 km/h. A snowfall, starting around noon and continuing until late at night, caused 50-60 cm of snow to accumulate on the slope of Kholat. The group wasn't at all worried. They were so relaxed that they didn't feel the need to carry extra firewood. The logs in the stove would suffice. When they reached the tent site, the accumulated snow made the walk difficult. They knew that the snow cover was three times that amount at the edge of the forest. Encouraged by the mild weather, they believed they could spend a pleasant night in a snow pit. However, with the changing weather conditions during the night, the snow layer would fall onto the tent like a slab.
If the tent had collapsed like a piece of cardboard, and Dyatlov and Kroveşenko had cut it open and escaped unharmed, wouldn't their first action have been to raise the tent poles to facilitate the evacuation of their comrades? If the tent poles are still standing, does that rule out the possibility that an avalanche destroyed the tent? How can we definitively deny that a 40-50 cm thick, 100x50 m slab of snow sliding down from above would crush the tent, then spread out over a wider area about 400 meters below, thin out, lose its movement, and be swept away by a storm that erupted during the night? As for the argument that an avalanche would have covered the footprints, this might be logical if the group members had noticed the avalanche beforehand and escaped. However, we are talking about an evacuation that occurred perhaps 10-15 minutes after the slab of snow had crushed the tent and slid down. The footprints were left on a snow cover that had come down from above. If another avalanche didn't occur after the group descended into the forest, how could the footprints have been covered?