Yea, this is what I was saying. Because of the varying changes in height and or conditions along the path it's taken, I think it just looks like it's more curved than it is. Looking at it closely, from the initial impact point to final resting it looks like there's a slight dip in the snow between the 2 peaks. So because it goes down then back up, when looking at it straight on, it appears to curve. When looking from a side view, you can see it's actually a straight line.

In regard to the silly disinformation being pedaled by certain individuals in the media and NASA, which I believe are just trying to hide this. But are in somewhat of a catch 22 because now it was seen by the masses, so if they take it down it will be obvious they are trying to hide something. They would rather this not be in our view and up for scrutiny. Anyway, there's no way this is simply ice breaking away from the mountain. I have 3 points of contention to dispute this ice narrative and what's funny is, they give this reasoning, with no evidence or other examples in which this same result was duplicated.

1. Where did the ice come from anyway, because I can't see any other ice anywhere in this image, ANYWHERE! A lot of snow, can even see the mountain peaks themselves, but no ice.

2. If zoomed in close, you can clearly see a deep impact crater where this thing hit the snow after hitting the mountain. If it was an avalanche, this would not have happened. It would have down what the other snow has done, slide down the and come to a rest in short distance from the mountain, not over 3,000 feet from the mountain lol! that is not a significant enough fall to generate that much momentum.

3. If you zoom out on the entire image, it is also clear that there is now a crater in the entire mountain top itself where this thing initially hit, and then it looks like bounced off and impacted the ground. Therefore the ground was the second impact not the first.