Don’t think so...

[Lyndasez]

Had they experienced an avalanche the skis and poles would’ve been disturbed and a vast amount of snow would make an appearance...however an extreme gust of wind could’ve blown a large quantity of snow onto the tent causing them to believe an avalanche was imminent...but I think they would’ve regrouped quick enough.

[CalzagheChick]

Well from what I understand, Yuri Yudin himself believed that this had to be the answer. I'm sure he spent his entire life eaten up by the events... I imagine he followed every shred of anything that could help him to understand.

I'm rather surprised there's not more input on the theory of avalanche. 

[Armide]

I don’t think Yuri Y. had a definite answer, I just know that he said that the fight theory was “bullshit”. IIRC he actually believed some parts of the millitary involvement theory later in life. I’m also surprised more people don’t mention an avalanche— it actually feels like it’s one of the more plausible theories. Tell anyone on the outside about the incident and their reaction is usually something along the lines of “oh, they were caught in an avalanche”.

[CalzagheChick]

That kind of exactly how I feel. Most people on the outside that haven't devoted nearly the time we have collectively (those of us that are active in the forum anyway) will say one of two things: avalanche or paradoxical undressing. In my time on random message boards before I really became active here, the bigger one is paradoxical undressing. BUT the one sentiment the ties those two things together are that many just don't feel that this is some  huge mystery at all. The rationale being: if you take nine young adults and put them up against high-endurance, treacherous, and unpredictable conditions in Siberia at the middle of Winter then you can safely expect that the obvious bad things are likely to happen on a dangerous mission--hypothermia being at the top of any danger list, blizzard/snowfall/avalanche conditions following closely behind.

And I can't argue that those aren't rational thoughts either. They are. Why complicate something that's not complicated? Is that what we've done ultimately? Have we blown the evidence way out of proportion when the simplest and most obvious answers are in fact THE answers?

[Marchesk]

And I can't argue that those aren't rational thoughts either. They are. Why complicate something that's not complicated? Is that what we've done ultimately? Have we blown the evidence way out of proportion when the simplest and most obvious answers are in fact THE answers?

The problem is that the evidence doesn't seem to fit. If they were fleeing an avalanche, why go downhill? It would have taken them some time in those conditions to get to the tree-line. Why wouldn't they reconsider returning to the tent when the avalanche didn't occur?

If they were buried by an avalanche first, then why didn't they dig their shoes and clothing out? The tent wasn't totally buried or swept down the mountain, so it could only have been a smaller one. I don't understand abandoning their only means of survival if it was a smaller avalanche. And if several of them had been seriously hurt, it makes even less sense to walk a mile to the trees.

As for paradoxical undressing, why would that have caused them to leave the tent? There were 9 warm bodies inside a 3 layered tent with a stove, sleeping bags and plenty of clothing. I'm not sure how they could have gotten so cold as to paradoxically cut their way out and flee the area. Before that ever happened, wouldn't you put clothes back on, get in your sleeping bag or fire up the stove once you started feeling cold?

Anyway, most of the people who have been to the mountain in winter, including recent authors, have concluded that there couldn't have been an avalanche in that terrain, and my understanding is there never has been a recorded avalanche on that mountain. It's such an obvious explanation, yet the initial investigator never even considered it as a possibility. Seems like it was ruled out right after finding that the tent only had atmospheric snow on it. Instead, it was high wind, then Mansi, then lights in the sky, and then the unknown compelling force.

[CalzagheChick]

Anyway, most of the people who have been to the mountain in winter, including recent authors, have concluded that there couldn't have been an avalanche in that terrain, and my understanding is there never has been a recorded avalanche on that mountain. It's such an obvious explanation, yet the initial investigator never even considered it as a possibility. Seems like it was ruled out right after finding that the tent only had atmospheric snow on it. Instead, it was high wind, then Mansi, then lights in the sky, and then the unknown compelling force.

My ultimate issue with the avalanche theory is that it does not in fact remotely look like they fell victim to an avalanche. If anything, it looks like snow was shoveled and thrown on top of the tent in the search party photos. THEN what really irritates me is that there's this flashlight that's sitting on top of the snow... not covered by snowfall from the weeks passed. Just on top.

I think those things alone rule out avalanche. I just wish to give Yuri Yudin credit for being highly educated and as the luckiest man alive in the world (if the USSR had a lottery, he needed to be playing it) and closest person to the incident... if he resigned to avalanche why shouldn't anybody else?

In any case, I happened to read it somewhere that in one of his interviews I think with Donnie Eichar? He explained that he could only resolve the mystery with the fear of an oncoming avalanche. I could be completely wrong here. I don't have any of the books and haven't read any of them. Unfortunately, the internet has sensationalized this event into a joke in some cases and it's getting harder and harder to decipher fact from embellishments. Example: the smoked ham and bacon. WHERE WAS THIS HAM AND BACON? I think that's according to McClosky?

[CalzagheChick]

I simply wanted to revive many of these older topics that have no discussion on them. They all deserve level-headed discussion among the most passionate and informed sleuths among the ranks.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Enjoy.

http://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312?rbid=17743

The tent was stretched on skis and sticks, hammered in the snow, its entrance was turned to the south, and on this side the stretches were intact, and the stretches of the tent on the north side were torn off and the whole second half of the tent was covered with snow. The tent had an ice ax, an extra pair of skis. On the tent was a Chinese lantern in the unlit state. 9 backpacks, 9 pairs of skis were found in the tent, all of them were under the tent floor, 8 pairs of boots, 3.5 pairs of boots, quilted jackets and many biscuits, half a sack of sugar, a large number of concentrates, cereals, soups, etc. , cocoa, axes, saw, cameras, students diaries, documents and money. At first glance, the tent was covered with snow. It was installed on a platform leveled by the students dug out. A tent with a windy side was torn in the middle part. The bottom of the tent was covered with padded jackets, backpacks and personal belongings of students. In the right corner, near the entrance there was a part of the products: cans of condensed milk, 100 grams of sliced ​​fat, biscuits, sugar, a flask empty from alcohol or vodka, the smell was felt, just like a jar with a drink (poured?) Cooked cocoa was diluted with water and naturally froze, a large knife was found near the fat of a sliced ​​me

[CalzagheChick]

So which one is it? Was an empty container of vodka found or not?

And I admit, I misread that line into thinking there was no evidence of ham/bacon rather than evidence that they cooked the fatty meat or whatever....

[Loose}{Cannon]

You'll have to talk to the admin.   

[DH106]

I think everyone's pretty much agreed here that an avalanche was pretty unlikely, for the reasons stated.

But here's my theory about the 'initial event' - perhaps there was a perception of an avalance:-

We know the spot where they camped was deep with snow (see frames 11 & 12 of the 'Loose Photos'), so logically they'd have to cut a flat platform or ledge into the snow to place the tent on. This process would also leave a snow 'wall' of some height (depending on how deep in the snow the platform was made) on the uphill (west) side of the tent. We know there was a westerly wind blowing - so perhaps the wind collapsed this wall onto the tent. Although it's only a limited amount of snow, it takes the hikers completely by supprise, and in panic, fearing an actual avalanche they frantically cut their way out of the tent.
Once outside the tent, it would be obvious there was no avalanche, but now the tent has been flattened by snow and cut open in several places. In the dark, perhaps only with flashlights to see with, they conclude that the tent is too damaged & covered with snow for them to fix there and then in the dark. Perhaps one of the group puts his/her flashlight down on the snow pile covering the tent as he/she tries to reach inside to recover items, but the weight of the snow is too much. The flashlight gets left. The more experienced of them realise that they'll soon freeze in this position, and so the decision is made to walk down to the woods, light a fire and await daylight with the intention of returning to clear the snow & fix/re-erect the tent.

Unfortunately, events overtake them in the woods and they never make it  to daylight.

[Blkdahlia]

I can’t say it wasn’t an avalanche, here is why...
1) The investigation itself is kinda unreliable.
2) Some of the injuries of the members are very similar to other individuals who have died in an avalanche... like the missing shoes and torn clothing

Regardless of what the investigators say, it’s obvious we can’t rely solely on it.Nothing can be really ruled out and nothing can be proven. They left the case this way. 

[DH106]

I can’t say it wasn’t an avalanche, here is why...
1) The investigation itself is kinda unreliable.
2) Some of the injuries of the members are very similar to other individuals who have died in an avalanche... like the missing shoes and torn clothing

Regardless of what the investigators say, it’s obvious we can’t rely solely on it.Nothing can be really ruled out and nothing can be proven. They left the case this way. 

The missing shoes were in the tent and so couldn't have been swept away in an avalanche.
Avalanches in general leave plenty of evidence of their passing - there was none, and the fact that the footprints survived is strong evidence against an avalanche.

[sarapuk]

All the indications are that there was no avalanche. And an avalanche is unlikely to have caused the subsequent actions.

[CalzagheChick]

All the indications are that there was no avalanche. And an avalanche is unlikely to have caused the subsequent actions.

Why?

[sarapuk]

Read what people have been saying about the unlikely hood of avalanches in that location.

[CalzagheChick]

I give the unlikelihood of a natural avalanche to you.

However, as far as the Rav4 are concerned I don't think it can be ruled out as completely nonsensical. When people disturb the snow in a major way, the risk of creating an avalanche increases. The possibility remains they could have very well created their own demise in their final acts of survival.

[sarapuk]

Well at the Tent site it looks like it wasnt an avalanche. As for the so called Den site, not sure. Certainly the snow appeared deeper there.