Dyatlov Pass. Was there an avalanche?

Interest in the tragedy that took place in the winter of 1959 at the Dyatlov Pass has not abated to this day. Many theories have been put forward about what happened to the Dyatlov group, but even the most popular of them may have some omissions. There are versions that are built with noticeable and gross errors.

The story itself, which happened to Igor Dyatlov, Zinaida Kolmogorova, Yuri Doroshenko, Georgiy Krivonischenko, Lyudmila Dubinina, Aleksander Kolevatov, Rustem Slobodin, Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle and Semyon Zolotaryov, has become a legend and a topic for reflection on forums and in numerous publications. The most popular explanations for this incident are the assumptions about criminal, man-made technological crises, conspiracy, and natural causes of the death of young hikers in the Northern Urals near Mt Kholat Syakhl.

The official wording of investigator Lev Nikitich Ivanov "an overwhelming force that the hikers were unable to overcome" as the cause of the death of the guys does not have strict meaning and can assume a wide range of interpretation of what killed the nine participants in the hike. It is precisely this vague explanation that has largely dissatisfied the public and the relatives of the victims, which is why specialists from many fields of knowledge, including scientists, are currently joining the study of this event. Among them are also climbers, geographers, and glaciologists who are trying to scientifically and convincingly verify the hypothesis of an avalanche that might have happened to the hikers. And their interest is not surprising, this version is closer to their understanding and corresponds to their expertise.

Currently, there is a certain renaissance of the avalanche theory and, more broadly, natural direction in the study of the tragedy at the Dyatlov Pass. The publicity of some studies in the media and loud headlines, sometimes with an exaggeration of the significance of some conclusions both in news feeds and in scientific publications cause a special resonance. And the avalanche explanation of the death of the Dyatlov group has a certain trail of scientific, irrefutable reliability and even a certain officialdom in the eyes of readers.

However, any, even scientific research and publications, are based on certain models that answer only part of the questions. Authors often, for objective reasons, cannot find an evidentiary explanation for other important and significant factual components of the case itself, which are key to formalizing the hypothesis into a realistic and comprehensive version. The purpose of this publication is to provide a balanced and unbiased look at the avalanche versions of the events on the Dyatlov Pass, in particular the version that claims that the snow slab caused the main severe injuries to the group members inside the tent, and thus provoked the entire group to abandon the tent in full force to the forest, where they all reached alive, including the members with the most severe injuries.

Let's start with the photographs (photo 1), in which the group is preparing a place to set up the tent. Everyone sees different things here, some see the very angle necessary for the snow slab to slide off. Others see deep, dry, freshly fallen snow, with backpacks and skis sunk in this snow (Sogrin, 2014), which could not have caused the severe injuries to the Dyatlov group in the tent. Moreover, the skis and poles were stuck into the snow, which indicates that it was not too dense.

Vladimir Borzenkov believes that the tent could not have been placed in such a way as to be caught in an avalanche: 'The actual slope cut does not correspond in any way to what is given in the initial conditions for the occurrence of an avalanche in Puzrin-Gaume articles (to be discussed further - authors' note). I do not know how familiar they are with the practice of skiing in Russia at that time (late 1950s), but in treeless areas on slopes of varying steepness, tents were set up according to the principle of the least amount of work with maximum camp safety and overnight convenience.'

Photo 1

The idea that the tragedy was caused by an avalanche is not new. From a historical point of view, Moisey Abramovich Akselrod is the progenitor of the avalanche-cold version of the death of the Dyatlov group. This experienced climber was acquainted with the participants of the expedition, he knew them personally. He also participated in the search operations and understood many details of what happened. His version did not receive due attention and design at the very beginning; he believed that the reason for the avalanche on the tent was some kind of man-made impact on the mass of snow.

Later, this direction was developed by geologist and director of the Vishera Reserve Igor Borisovich Popov and professor-geographer Nikolay Nikolaevich Nazarov (Alpinists of the Northern Capital, 2002). It is known that Popov, in particular, was one of the pioneers with an abstract and an article 'It was an avalanche', which described cases of death of people and animals due to avalanches in the mountains of the Northern Urals. The facts of avalanches in the mountains are not surprising, and the assumption itself already had every right to exist.

At the present avalanches have also been recorded at a distance of several kilometers from the place where the Dyatlov group set up their tent. In particular, during the expedition to the pass on March 29, 2021, its participants observed a dark formation on the neighboring slope. In January 2022, another group went to the pass, which for the first time witnessed an avalanche in that area. These facts may suggest that in those places there are conditions for the formation of avalanche-prone snow cover, which in the case of the Dyatlov group could have served as the key cause of this famous tragedy.

However, people studying the tragedy do not consider this to be something out of the ordinary, especially proof of such an avalanche on the pass. For example, Vladimir Borzenkov states the following: 'The place where the avalanche was photographed by Dmitry Borisov on March 29, 2021, with an existing landslide, is not unique, we have seen such landslides there in different years. The place was not studied because it is far from the scene of the events and has completely different conditions. Although the possibility of avalanches in this particular area was not denied, it has nothing to do with what happened to the Dyatlov group' (Borzenkov).

It is important to note that over all these years, no avalanches have been observed in the immediate vicinity of the tent site, and many expeditions have pitched their tents at teh exact same time of the year without any concerns. Moreover, in 2025, a visitor center with a hotel is planned to be built on the Dyatlov Pass, as stated by Elmira Tukanova, Director of the Department for Tourism Development and Hospitality Industry of the Sverdlovsk Region (Krasikov, 2024). Of course, no one would do this if the danger was real.

If the slope is really avalanche-prone, the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Sverdlovsk Region should have closed this place for winter visits. And as we see, a famous expedition took place in that very place last winter 2024, and no one banned it.

In the winter of 2025, an expedition went there, and judging by numerous discussions on the Internet, only one of the participants, Stanislav Evdokimov, tried again and in vain to experimentally prove an avalanche. Nevertheless, the expedition itself brought very important materials and experience in modeling those events. This expedition was a reconstruction of the hike and repeated the installation of a tent with an undercut (photo 2, author Alexander Fedotov), ​​however, the snow that subsequently accumulated on the tent and presented a picture similar to the one that the searchers found was brought by the wind (sweeping) and retention of snow on the tent (photo 3, author Alexander Fedotov), ​​and not an avalanche.

Photo 2

Photo 3

But despite the actual absence of avalanches at the site of the tragedy on the Dyatlov Pass, the avalanche version continues to flourish. The key figures who made the greatest contribution to the development of the avalanche direction of research into the tragedy are Evgeniy Vadimovich Buyanov and Boris Efimovich Slobtsov. An important fact for many is that it was Slobtsov's search group that first discovered the empty tent on the slope.

The argument of those who support the avalanche is that Evgeniy Buyanov's co-author is directly related to the search operations and is one of the first witnesses to the scene after the incident. And according to Evgeniy Buyanov's version, it shows some residual traces of what happened 25 days before the arrival of these searchers (i.e. the buried tent; Buyanov, 2017).

The inconsistency of this argument is proven by the testimony of Slobtsov himself, recorded in the protocol of his interrogation on pp. 298-300. Slobtsov reported the following: 'When we approached the tent, we discovered: the entrance to the tent protruded from under the snow, and the rest of the tent was under the snow. Around the tent in the snow were ski poles and spare skis - 1 pair. The snow on the tent was 15-20 cm thick, it was clear that the snow had been blown onto the tent, it was hard.' (pp. 298). The fact that there were ski poles and a couple of spare skis in the snow around the tent excludes the possibility of an avalanche in any form descending on the tent.

A similar picture can be seen in the photo from the 2025 expedition of Alexander Fedotov's group (photo 4, author Alexander Fedotov.)

Photo 4

Boris Slobtsov was not alone there either, his partner Mikhail Sharavin was with him. And he recalls that the tent was well secured with poles - ski poles, everything was in order inside and things were laid out in their places. There was no snow inside the tent. There were no irrefutable traces of an avalanche. (Sharavin's recollections).

Other young searchers, who were already experienced hikers at that time, and even later became mountaineers, do not agree with the avalanche version, and, moreover, bring arguments against it. In particular, experienced mountaineer Sergey Nikolaevich Sogrin who participated in the search and upon arrival at the site inquired about the presence of a specific layer of snow, along which the upper snow layers could have slid down. 'When I found myself with Ivanov and Maslennikov at the place where the tent was set up, I inquired about the condition of the snow. I did not find any signs of formation of deep hoarfrost under a dense layer of snow (crust). It is the underlying layer for an avalanche.' (Sogrin, 2014).

'Snow can fall in grains, or in huge flakes or individual snowflakes, it can be dry or wet, it can fall in calm weather, or it can flow along the ground during a blizzard, the snow can be affected by the sun or frost. All these factors lead to the fact that the snow cover is a 'layered cake', which consists of many layers of different structures, different densities, different strengths and with different connections between these layers.' (Vedenin). That is, deep hoarfrost is important for the formation of the slab, and its presence is not always and not everywhere guaranteed.

'Some of the changes (compaction, shrinkage of snow, formation of rounded grains) lead to an increase in the stability of the snow cover and a decrease in the avalanche danger.' (Vedenin) It was precisely this dense and stable snow that was observed during expeditions to the pass, and there are conditions there for the formation of exactly this kind of snow cover (photo 5, author Alexander Fedotov).

Photo 5

No photo was received showing that a layer of deep hoarfrost is present in winter on the pass in the area where the tent was set up. It is precisely this type of study of the snow cover that is key and necessary for theorists and practitioners of avalanche research. Another participant in the search, Petr Bartolomey, rules out an avalanche: 'I arrived at the scene of the tragedy a month later, there were no traces of an avalanche. the footprints were clearly visible in the snow, the trees were not covered or damaged by the snow wave' (Bartolomey, 2019).

Of course, it could have been a small avalanche, and according to the followers of the avalanche version, traces of which could not have been found. But the accumulation of snow on the pass and its specificity should have been similar in other places, and not only on the supposedly fallen several meters of the formed board, as was already indicated above, such necessary conditions were not found either in 1959 or during modern expeditions.

In the article by Vladislav Karelin 'Avalanche is a myth' the author writes: 'The only sign of an avalanche on the tent, according to the trace expert, is the simultaneous collapse of the rear stand and the tearing of the rear guy ropes, the cause of which could have been some kind of blow from top to bottom at a slight angle, including as a result of the avalanche' (Karelin). In the same article he concludes: 'The least likely cause of the guy rope tearing is an avalanche, since the searchers who saw the state of the tent on February 26-27, 1959, unanimously did not note any traces of an avalanche. But the searchers unanimously confirm the presence of guy ropes and a vertical ridge pole on the side of the entrance to the tent. I will also note that the poles on the back of the tent, to which the rear guy ropes were tied, are still in place. Hypothetically, it can be assumed that an avalanche could have descended on the tent based on a set of certain indicators (slope angle, snow depth, snow structure, etc.). But the absence of traces of an avalanche and the above factual data denying an avalanche allow us to conclude that the probability of an avalanche is becoming an insignificant myth.' (Karelin)

The argument that the witnesses were young and inexperienced is groundless. Experienced climbers Kirill Bardin, Evgeniy Shuleshko, and Semyon Baskin took part in the 1959 search. Moreover, master of sports Evgeniy Maslennikov led these searches. When they arrived at the pass, none of them found any signs of a snow slide. We will not find any mention of it in any of the answers. There is nothing in the criminal case that could indicate a snow avalanche. And of course, an important fact is that Bardin and Shuleshko were specifically sent to investigate this tragedy from the point of view of tourism, that is, as a natural disaster, but they did not find any traces of an avalanche.

Nevertheless, this and many other pieces of evidence of the absence of traces of an avalanche on the slope did not prevent Evgeniy Buyanov from developing the avalanche version and becoming the most famous researcher of the tragedy from among the representatives of the avalanche direction, and this is thanks to his publications and the work done to study the events at Dyatlov Pass. His research is comprehensive and the most detailed in conveying all the details of what happened in the avalanche segment of research. However, this is only one of many versions.

Was the avalanche version checked by official bodies? According to the media, the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia conducted an investigation into the criminal case on the death of Igor Dyatlov's tourist group. Numerous appeals from relatives of the deceased, increased interest in the media and the public to this topic have done their job 60 years later. At that time, the deputy head of the Prosecutor General's Office in the Urals Federal District, Andrey Kuryakov, as an expert lawyer, confirmed the version of an avalanche and the influence of other natural factors on the events with the tourist group at a press conference at the editorial office of Komsomolskaya Pravda. According to what he said, several options for the development of events were considered, and the examination came to the conclusion that an avalanche could have descended and served as a critical starting point for the development of subsequent events on the pass. Experts examined a variety of materials, which, according to Kuryakov, gave the most realistic picture of several versions of death from natural factors, and other versions were also excluded by experts.

During one of the press conferences, Andrey Kuryakov said that in the 'investigation they relied on various reliable sources, including a book that confirms the danger of avalanches in this region with an indicator of 0.1 to 1 avalanche per year' (Incidents Sverdlovsk Region, 2020). At the same time, it was established that the most avalanche-prone month is January. He also said that there are violations in the criminal case and some examinations are missing. In his opinion, the case would have been investigated at a different level if this had happened today (Incidents Sverdlovsk Region, 2020).

Kuryakov's conclusion paints the tragedy on the pass as the result of an avalanche, but it is not Evgeniy Buyanov's avalanche, which causes fatal injuries on the slope itself, in the tent. Kuryakov's avalanche is only a snow slab that scared the hikers out of the tent.

As a legal expert, Andrey Kuryakov told the following details of what happened at a press conference at the editorial office of Komsomolskaya Pravda, according to his conclusion: 'The examination established that the winds were mainly north-westerly, but 20% were south-westerly. Both winds carried snow. When the group was walking along the eastern slope of Kholat Syakhl, they went under a snow cornice. There was a wind shadow. But they did not know that this wind shadow was created not by the terrain, but by the accumulated snow. The tent was 50 meters from the cornice... Zolotaryov cried out that there was an avalanche. At that moment, the avalanche had already reached the back of the tent. The only correct decision in this situation was to quickly cut the tent and jump out... The hikers exited the tent with the intention of dragging it along with them. It was again the right decision. The group moved 50 meters to a stone ridge. This is also the right decision... If it had been a moonlit night, they would have seen the tent. But the visibility was 6-11 meters. They were 50 meters away. And they could no longer see the tent' (Results of the examination of the mystery of the Dyatlov Pass, 2020). According to Kuryakov, the severe injuries with fractures were the result of the 'second avalanche' (collapse) in the bed of the stream, and not sustained from a snow slab on the slope.

During the winter expedition of Alexander Fedotov's group in 2025 one of the members, Stanislav Evdokimov, while trying to dug up a snow cave was buried in snow in the stream and was not injured in any way. We do not know whether this experiment corresponded to the conditions that existed in 1959, however, this casts a shadow on the possibility of receiving some serious injuries in the stream area from collapsing snow.

Andrey Kuryakov hired climatologist Galina Pigoltsina in the capacity of an expert. Although she is not a meteorologist, she is a highly qualified specialist in the field of applied climatology and microclimatology. Her scientific activities include detailed climate assessment of specific territories, methods for calculating microclimatic indicators, technologies for taking into account microclimatic information in climate services for various sectors of the economy, and assessments of the impact of climate change on agroclimatic resources.

And although the expert's specialization is not directly related to the case in hand, she carried out responsible work on studying the microclimatic characteristics of the Kholat Syakhl Mountain area (Dyatlov Pass) for February 1-2, 1959, which is important for building any versions and models. For this work, she used materials provided to her by the Sverdlovsk Region Prosecutor's Office: surface weather maps, baric topography maps, a composite climate map for the period under review, tables of meteorological observations at the Ivdel station, a glaciologist's expert opinion, and other archival materials (Pigoltsina, 2020).

Half of the references are works by Galina Pigoltsina herself, which have nothing to do with a specific place or with forecasting specific weather. The other part of the literature is climatological. It is about determining possible weather options for a given period of time, based on long-term data.

Without a doubt, this work is a contribution to the study of climatic and topographic factors that could determine the events at the Dyatlov Pass. She modeled the microclimate in the mountain area on February 1-2, 1959. Her findings, along with other natural causes, give the green light to the avalanche cause of the events, based on a detailed study of the topography of the tent installation area, the impact of temperature, wind, precipitation and other weather factors. She calculated the wind-chill index and other key indicators for understanding those events. In addition, the visibility of the tent that night was also studied. All these natural factors studied by the specialist, although they may have some error, served as the basis for Andrey Kuryakov's conclusions.

According to the media (Lukmanov, 2019), the Institute of Geophysics did not recognize the slope as avalanche-prone: 'We were asked to provide information on the situation on the Dyatlov Pass on February 1, 1959. Moreover, evidence is required that everything happened due to natural causes. The request came long time ago, but we still cannot give an answer. We do not see objective factors that would indicate a natural process. This slope is not prone to avalanches, the average precipitation was 90 mm. However, private practitioner Viktor Popovnin, as an expert, came to the opposite opinion. He is not a full-time expert of the forensic institution. Andrey Kuryakov appointed him as an expert in this case and personally instructed him to conduct an examination to resolve the questions asked of him, which is permitted by law.

The research of Swiss specialists Johan Gaume and Alexander Puzrin was a new milestone in the development of the avalanche direction of the Dyatlov Pass tragedy research. The research is declared as work with qualitatively new methods of modeling the possibility of a snow slab falling on the group's tent using topography and climatic and weather factors in mathematical models to determine not only the probability of a snow layer falling, but also to assess such a hypothetical impact on hikers' bodies by this localized type of avalanche. That is, according to the authors, current avalanche study methods were used, the work was carried out in cooperation with various institutes, which gives formal significance to this work.

Alexander Puzrin and Johan Gaume became media famous thanks to colorful and sometimes too loud headlines about the alleged complete disclosure of the case thanks to their article, and even gave interviews to various publications. But their results are less grandiose than the headlines promoting their work.

'After the article was published, I came across the work of Galina Pigoltsina, who modeled the microclimate in the mountain area on February 1-2, 1959,' Alexander continues. 'Galina is a well-known specialist, she carried out similar calculations, for example, for the Sochi Olympics. That's why I opened the file with great excitement: what if the weather didn't match our transfer model?.. Having plucked up my courage, I began to read - and saw that everything matched. According to her data, the wind speed then increased from 9 to 12 m/s, and there was about one and a half meters of snow above the tent. Just what was needed' (Fishman, 2023).

That is, Galina Pigoltsina's work was not the basis for the article, and only later were the data from her work compared with what Alexander Puzrin and Johan Gaume came up with.

An interesting fact is that the conclusions of the prosecutor's investigation do not coincide with what the Swiss scientists propose. It is very important to understand that Galina Pigoltsina's work is the scientific basis for the conclusions of Andrey Kuryakov's version, and for the Swiss researchers, the main support was the works of Buyanov and Slobtsov.

To see some pretentiousness in the study of the Dyatlov Pass topic by Swiss scientists, one must understand that the 'Buyanov avalanche' is objectively different from the 'Kuryakov avalanche'. Moreover, from the point of view of constructing versions, they are mutually exclusive. Evgeniy Buyanov's Thibeaux-Brignolle, Zolotaryov and Dubinina were injured in the tent by an avalanche that hit the tent. Kuryakov's hikers all got out of the tent and walked down the slope for one and a half kilometers on their own. The avalanche that caused the rib fractures in Kuryakov's version came down from the bank of a stream. Comparison between Buyanov's and Kuryakov's avalanches ends in insoluble logical contradictions.

But judging by the interview with Professor of the Institute of Geotechnics Alexander Puzrin, there is nothing fundamental in the difference between the two versions regarding injuries: 'Of course, the avalanche could have simply driven people out of the tent, and they were injured outside. This is what the investigation and most supporters of the avalanche hypothesis believe, - says Alexander Puzrin. - Nevertheless, we have shown that the snow itself could have caused the fractures' (Fishman, 2023). However, for the researchers of the tragedy, these differences are fundamental and very important, and Alexander Puzrin's comment is unconvincing, especially from the author of an article with such a loud title as 'The mechanism of descent and impact of a slab avalanche during the incident at Dyatlov Pass in 1959'.

Considering that the Swiss scientists Puzrin and Gaume tested whether a snow mass of approximately five by five meters with a density of about 400 kg/m3 and a speed of movement of 2 meters per second could be sufficient to cause multiple rib fractures to the members of Dyatlov's group, the choice in advance determined the testing of only one hypothesis in the conditions of the pass, and only in the tent area. That is, the possibility of a local snow slab of Evgeniy Buyanov, which is capable of causing severe injuries in a tent similar to those described in the autopsy reports, was proven.

The authors used data from experiments that General Motors conducted back in the 1970s with hundreds of unclaimed corpses in order to improve seat belts. 'The bodies were suspended by their arms and hit on the chest with different weights and at different speeds. Sensors recorded whether a fracture occurred, what kind and how. We were extremely lucky: we were able to get acquainted with this data, explains Alexander Puzrin' (Fishman, 2023).

The scientists also took key data for their calculations from the works of Evgeniy Buyanov, one of which is on the list of sources used for the article. For them, work was also carried out on a topographic survey of the area. As a result, the modeling checked both the possibility of such an avalanche under certain conditions in that place, and the possibility of the Dyatlov group members receiving some of the injuries.

It is important to understand that the entire version was not checked, for example, whether the Dyatlov group members were capable of reaching the forest zone with such injuries was not checked. The authors were forced to emphasize this fact (that the article does not answer other oddities of the tragedy) in their article. After all, it was published in a journal with an impact factor higher than 7, and of course, due to the level of this journal, it had to be based on scientific principles. Therefore, the authors were able to check only individual hypotheses, and not defend the entire version.

But is it correct to call the article 'Mechanisms of descent and impact of a slab avalanche during the Dyatlov Pass incident in 1959' for the respected journal Communications Earth & Environment? Was this avalanche officially proven for the 'Dyatlov Pass incident in 1959'? At the very beginning of this article, the authors point to the fact of a prosecutor's inspection by the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia with a positive result in favor of an avalanche. As we have already found out, this was a different avalanche, and not the one that the Swiss scientists checked based on the principles of the works of Evgeniy Buyanov. Yes, they proved that their hypothetical avalanche can cause some of the described injuries in the tent. But Andrey Kuryakov, with his inspection, did not just rule out exactly this course of events, exactly the kind of avalanche that breaks ribs and skulls in the tent itself. The final conclusions of Andrey Kuryakov's work were the conclusions about the avalanche danger of the slope, with the rest of the details considered in the framework of his dissertation (Results of the examination on the mystery of the Dyatlov Pass, 2020).

The official commission in 1959 ruled out an avalanche, stating the following: 'As a result of the investigation conducted by the commission of the Regional Committee of the CPSU / chairman of the commission comrade Pavlov V.A. - deputy chairman of the regional executive committee /, it was established that the immediate cause of the death of the group was a hurricane that overtook it as it approached Mount Otorten'. This is the official version. In this case, the loud title of the article in a respected journal is somewhat exaggerated.

Johan Gaume developed a scientific model that shows what happens to a snow slab after it breaks away. This is the scientific component to which the authors of that article added the tragedy that happened to the Dyatlov group as a historical mystery. Scientists used this model for their calculations of various parameters describing the possible descent of this type of avalanche onto the Dyatlov group's tent. This is the media-famous modern method for checking the probability of the so-called 'Buyanov avalanche'.

As it turned out, the studies only talk about the possible realism of an avalanche as the cause of the accident on the Dyatlov Pass, but completely ignore some important facts of the criminal case itself. And for some reason, the criminal case itself is not included in the list of sources for this article. Whether the authors worked with the materials of the criminal case itself when studying the tragedy or simply checked someone's interpretation of the case from the author's book is an open question. The authors of the study emphasize in the article itself that they are modeling the mechanism of an avalanche without trying to explain other strange circumstances of the incident, such as traces of radioactivity on people's clothes and the behavior of hikers after the snow came down (Gaume and Puzrin, 2021).

It is extremely important to note that the main stumbling block and the key argument against such a development of events is, first of all, the nature of the Dyatlov group's injuries. Indeed, at first glance, the avalanche of a snow slab on the Dyatlov group's tent can explain some of the injuries they received. It explains only a certain possibility of receiving such injuries, but not the possibility of transporting the wounded or a sufficient life expectancy with such injuries.

Without a doubt, the severity of the injuries calls into question the realism of the entire group retreating into the forest zone, and after all, there were exactly 8-9 pairs of footprints (according to the case files) leading from the tent. This is clear from the interrogation protocols, including the additional interrogation of witness Evgeniy Maslennikov: 'Question: How many people's tracks did you find on the slope of height 1079 under the tent? Answer: Tracks were visible on a limited section of the slope below the tent, and only in one place - all at once, before and after that - tracks of 3 to 5 people, or even less, were distinguished. 8 pairs of tracks, the 9th pair was controversial, since the tracks ran on top of each other. I am inclined to believe that all 9 pairs of tracks were there, and other comrades in the search shared this opinion.'

In particular, the possibility of such a course of events, like the snow slab of Evgeniy Buyanov and his followers, is not supported by one of the leading forensic experts of the Russian Federation, Eduard Tumanov. In several of his interviews, he questions the possibility that the injuries were caused by a snow slab that ran over the tent, since the group members who were so seriously injured would not have reached the forest zone alive.

For example, answering questions from Evgeniy Sazonov (Evgeniy Sazonov, Eduard Tumanov. Radio KP. January 30, 2021), Eduard Tumanov says the following: 'An avalanche explains absolutely nothing, but only confuses people... Neither the steepness of the slope, nor the height of the pass, allow such an event to happen. Local residents who have lived there for decades cannot remember anything like that. Obviously, if there was an avalanche-prone area there, this would have happened more than once.

As the work of our experts, professional glaciologists who constantly work with snow, has shown, there is a possibility of snow masses shifting, they can move a few meters to the side, but this is not the reason that nine physically and mentally healthy, strong young people... But for them to develop such a panic attack, for them to run to the cedar, whoever was wearing what - this cannot happen.

In the same interview, Eduard Tumanov notes: 'Swiss forensic experts who understand the mechanism of injuries, they are silent on this topic. Because they understand about a person's ability to move independently, after certain injuries, much better than those who calculated the descent of this snow slab.

Dubinina, in addition to broken ribs, has a hemorrhage in the anterior wall of the heart. This suggests that she had a contusion of the heart as a result of some very strong blow to the projection of the heart. I emphasize, to the projection of the heart. After such damage to the heart and hemorrhage into the anterior wall of the left ventricle, the events will become irreversible and fatal. A person will not be able to move, let alone breathe, because uncontrollable cardiac fibrillation develops, and in most cases it is impossible to stop it even when a resuscitation team is nearby. With such damage, she was doomed.

She could not move, she would have been conscious for some time, but she would not have been able to speak either, because such an injury is also accompanied by severe respiratory distress. And accordingly, biological death would have occurred in 3-4 minutes. But these 3-4 minutes would have passed in an already agonal state.

Eduard Tumanov's opinion, which he told Evgeniy Sazonov at the same time, is also interesting, regarding the widespread misconception that Lyudmila Dubinina's heart was damaged by rib fragments: 'No, the ribs broke along other lines, there was no displacement of rib fragments inside the chest, they simply cracked along their entire thickness, but did not shift further. In order for a rib to pierce the heart, on one side the fragment must shift, then it must first pierce the pericardium, and only then the wall of the ventricle. Her pericardium is intact, there is fluid in the pericardial cavity, and the heart wall is also intact, but it is soaked with blood. This is the result of trauma, this is the result of a blow.' He also reported that if the guys had been crushed by a snow slab, then by the time Lyudmila was pulled out from under it, she would already be dead.

This is not the only interview in which Eduard Tumanov explains Lyudmila Dubinina's injury as the result of a blow: '... For example, Dubinina, in addition to broken ribs, has a hemorrhage in the anterior wall of the heart. This suggests that she had a contusion of the heart as a result of some very strong blow... Such damage to the heart is fatal, irreversible. After it, Dubinina could no longer move or speak, because such an injury is also accompanied by severe respiratory distress. Biological death would have occurred in about 3-4 minutes' (Commentary by Tumanov from the KP publication 'What killed the Dyatlov group? Definitely not an avalanche!').

There, Tumanov says about the injuries of Thibault-Brignolle and Slobodin: 'Neither Thibault-Brignolle nor Slobodin would not have been able to run or move anywhere with such injuries. You see, such injuries are always accompanied by a brain contusion. There are not only hemorrhages under the membranes, but also a contusion. Vozrozhdenniy did not detect these contusions, and, in fact, he could not detect them on the putrefactively transformed brain. But the laws of physics, the laws of the universe are in place, and such extensive injuries are always accompanied by hemorrhages.

Not only above and below the membranes, because there, above the dura mater, a hemorrhage should certainly have formed, and under the dura mater, but also contusions of the brain matter. And a brain contusion is always a local hemorrhage and destruction of the brain matter. When a person develops a contusion, he immediately loses consciousness. Regardless of the volume and localization, this is always accompanied by a loss of consciousness. Consciousness can be restored, but much later, here everything depends on the volume of damage and localization. But with the volume of the depressed skull fracture, it was impossible to regain consciousness without neurosurgical assistance, and provided promptly, and within the first hour after receiving the injury.'

Dubinina's forensic medical examination states that 'when palpating the neck, unusual mobility of the horns of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage is determined' (case file vol.1, 356). The proponents of the avalanche of a snow slab explain Lyudmila's injury by the impact of its edge on the throat area. But it should be noted that to receive this kind of fracture, the neck must be completely open to impact, that is, when the head is raised as high as possible. But no one would lie in such a position in a tent (her rib fracture occurred while lying on her back), when something was placed under her head for the convenience of sleeping in their conditions, and even more so half-sitting in a ravine, in a dug cave. That is, there was no free access to the neck, and in this case, not the neck, but her chin would have taken most of the blow. Well, and most importantly, this kind of fracture is possible from the impact of a hard blunt object with a limited surface, and avalanche snow, like a snow slab (since this is an abstract concept for characterizing grievous bodily harm) is a surface that is not limited at all, even in relation to almost the entire body, and even more so for the neck. In addition, the broken horns on the body of the hyoid bone are on the sides, and they can break, accordingly, only when impacted from the side, and simultaneously from two sides, left and right.

Also, in the criminal case there is not a single fact that Lyudmila Dubinina, injured in the tent, was brought, and not carried down to the cedar. This refers to the discrepancy in the number of pairs of footprints for such a scenario, since Thibault-Brignolle's injury was so severe that he definitely could not have walked on his own feet.

Because of this, when speaking of an avalanche or snow slab when building versions, Dubinina must definitely go down the slope alive, and in a normal condition. Otherwise the simplest movement and even breathing with such a chest injury causes severe pain, so that no leg movements are possible at all. 'It is categorically excluded that she moved anywhere after such a blow. Or she was already dead when they carried her. Because death occurs, with such injuries, quite quickly. Not instantly, but very quickly, within a few minutes.' (Commentary by Tumanov from the documentary film Dyatlov Pass. End of Story.)

Regarding Semyon Zolotaryov's injuries, Tumanov states the following: 'Zolotaryov has similar injuries. There are also rib fractures, from the second to the sixth rib on the right, near the sternum and along the mid-axillary line, with hemorrhages, that occurred pre-mortem. I would like to draw attention to the fact that these are multiple fractures, along several anatomical lines at once, and with hemorrhages not only in the muscles. The coroner also describes hemorrhages in the pleural cavities, where there was a significant accumulation of blood. They are accompanied by damage to the parietal pleura, and this means severe pain. This is a sharp respiratory distress. The very fact of the presence of such fractures and such injuries is already a sufficient reason for a person to die. This is serious harm to health, threatening life.' (From an interview with Tumanov for KP: 'The forensic medical examination reports on the bodies of the dead hikers were analyzed by a scientist from the Second Med.' 12.07.2014)

Also about the chest fractures of Lyuda and Semyon, we must understand the following: 'We can assume that 2, 3, or 4 ribs are broken, but here almost the entire anatomical framework of the chest is broken. Taking into account the bleeding, this means that the lung tissue and pleura were damaged. This is pleuropulmonary shock - a person cannot inhale or exhale, let alone move. This is wild pain.' (From an interview with Tumanov. Dyatlov Pass: documentary series. Alexander Lukyanov). We will also cite this quote: 'Semyon Zolotaryov was also doomed - due to broken ribs, he developed pleuropulmonary shock, and he could neither scream nor speak - much less overcome such a difficult path down the mountain to the cedar, where the guys made a fire to save themselves.' (Commentary by Tumanov from the KP publication 'What killed the Dyatlov group? Definitely not an avalanche!')

And even in some miraculous, although completely unrealistic and unproven coincidence, in which the members of the group with such injuries were able to stand and walk on their own feet for some time, the very possibility that the entire group reached the forest zone alive seems incredible. The transportation of the wounded could have worsened their condition and they would definitely not have arrived alive. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the participant with extremely severe injuries, Lyudmila Dubinina, outlived the members of the group who died near the cedar, which does not connect the injuries described in the forensic medical reports with the possibility of their receipt in a tent. She outlived Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, and in the forest zone she was definitely alive and was insulated with the things of her deceased comrade (Scheme 1 by Olga Litvinova).

Not only Eduard Tumanov, but searchers and researchers ask similar questions regarding various injuries. 'Nikolay Thibeaux-Brignolle had a serious injury that prevented him from moving independently. According to the expert's conclusion, he was unconscious. Then why are there 9 pairs of footprints from the tent? There would not have been enough strength to carry him away in their arms. And the nature of the footprints would have been completely different, even if they had tried to drag him by the arms. And most importantly, why run naked if a layer of snow fell on the tent?' (Sogrin, 2014)

It should be noted that despite the ambiguity, some understatement, and, in the opinion of many researchers, an obvious mistake in the avalanche answer to the question 'What killed the Dyatlov group?', the natural science direction of research itself stimulates the study of the topography of the area, climatic factors and other topics, involves various kinds of specialists and amateurs, including hikers who will be able to study the pass itself every winter, filling the treasury of knowledge on this issue suitable for all researchers and versions.

Undoubtedly, the development of the topic of studying avalanches at any level, amateur and professional, is an important fact, it forms a serious attitude among the general public to the danger in the mountains in winter and brings in an educational element for all those interested in this version of the explanation of the tragedy at the Dyatlov Pass. In addition, studying the natural factors that affect tourists increases the reader's literacy in numerous natural science topics. And the very memory of the fearlessness of young hikers on the pass shows us an example of a simple human feat and genuine friendship.

Nevertheless, any research and publication should be perceived only as one of the possible or impossible scenario options. 'I emphasize that we have never stated anywhere that the mystery of the Dyatlov Pass has been solved. Our statements are more modest: an avalanche could have descended and served as a direct cause of the death of the hikers,' says Alexander Puzrin in one of his interviews (Fishman, 2023). As it has become clear, none of the representatives of the avalanche theory at the moment will be able to convincingly give a positive answer to the question 'Was there an avalanche?' We have found that there are weighty arguments against the avalanche course of events on the pass, and the scientific approach requires verification, it must also correspond to the facts and reflect current data.

First of all, we noted the discrepancy between the severity of the injuries and the events in the forest zone, provided that these injuries were received in the tent, which is the key drawback of the avalanche version. Also, the very nature of the injuries casts doubt on their avalanche cause. Followers of avalanche versions need to prove that people with such serious injuries were able to live long enough to fit all this into the events in the forest zone. This is the most difficult task for those who build their versions on the basis of the hypothetical 'Buyanov's avalanche'. There is an objective understanding of the fact that evidence of the possibility of an avalanche and receiving such injuries in the conditions of the pass, even in the presence of theoretically working models explaining the events in the tent precisely in the avalanche vein, does not answer all the questions, does not correspond to the interrogations, conclusions and opinions of experts and witnesses.

You can't carefully avoid 'inconvenient' facts, proving the existence of everything that is not related to the subject of proof, in order to create a myth about proof. After reading the loud headlines and the text, initially constructed in such a way that it focuses attention only on what speaks in favor of an avalanche, the uncritical reader gets the impression that absolutely everything has been proven. But no one has proven 'an avalanche that broke the bones of the hikers in the tent', and the uncritical reader does not see this.

In addition to this thought (already in the context of an uncritical viewer) and in confirmation of the conclusions of this article, we cite the words of Vladimir Sharko from one discussion (with the permission of the author): 'As far as I know from talking with Eduard Anishchenko, the author of the film 'Unfinished Route', Buyanov has never been to the mountains in winter. It is clear from this that he has no concept of the snow in the mountains. At the time we talked, Eduard also adhered to the avalanche version. He also made his film for Buyanov. But if you watch his film, you will see shots in which the poles and skis standing around the tent in the well-known frame are retouched. As a person who once worked on television, I immediately saw these special effects. Since retouching is present in the film, it means that the author and director had an understanding of what could not be. Lies are the enemy of truth. This is where we can put an end to the avalanche version' (Sharko, 2025).

Another and very important point for accepting or rejecting the avalanche version is another 'retouching'. At a conference in Yekaterinburg dedicated to the 66th anniversary of the tragedy, Elena Dmitrievskaya (Dmitrievskaya, Litvinova, Ankudinov, 2025) presented a report that notes that all nine acts from the criminal case have nothing to do with the forensic medical examination bureau, there are facts of the absence of seals and medical illiteracy, editing and elimination of the 'unnecessary'. Could an avalanche really be the reason for such an 'editing' of the case materials? Would an avalanche have to be hidden?

In conclusion, it must be stated that, in all likelihood, there was no avalanche on the slope of Kholat Syakhl on the night of February 2, 1959. The endless discussion of this version in the media only strengthens the suspicion that they want to hide from us the most inconvenient reason for the death of the guys. As the famous researcher of the tragedy, writer Oleg Arkhipov said in one of his recent interviews 'I was told directly: until the state reveals the necessary details, they will always talk about an avalanche' (Arkhipov, 2024)