Dear authors
We have now received three extensive reviews and three detailed answers by the authors. The authors largely modified the skeleton of their manuscript adding new figures and subsections. This gives rise to some critical enhancements of the quality of the manuscript. However, it is still not clear how the experiments brings new information to either the geophysical community working on the mechanics of free falls, or to the modelling community trying to advance the state of the art of dynamic propagation models. I suggest the authors to continue to rephrase mainy their introduction and discussion section with the goal of providing answers on how their results could be used for these two communities. Limitations of their experiments (a certain type of block geometry) should also be expressed in this view.
I suggest the authors to submit their revised version for further review by the editorial board.
Best regards,
Jean-Philippe Malet

Dear authors,

The modifications provided to the revised manuscript have enhanced its quality. the main findings of the works are summarized and their limitations well adressed.
I consider the manuscript ready for publication if a few technical corrections are applied.

- Title: in the title, the term rockfall or free fall should be added in order to focus the object being studied

- Figures :
--> provide figures without the black / grey box arounf the graphs
--> do not insert the tile of the sub-figures (e.g. Fig 1, b, c...) within the figure in itself, but in the figure title. Just add (a), (b), (c), ... in teh figure.
--> dimensions/sizes of the blocks and instruments on Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 should be added.
--> scale of Fig 4b should be added
--> dimension of the indentations on Fig. 12a should be added


- Figure title: most of the title are not adequate - provide a general title to each figure, and sub-title for each sub-figure

- Tables : format the tables according to the NHESS formatting ruleS.
Consider also to transfer Table 1 in an Annex.


- English : a very detailled review of the English language by a native speaker is needed. There are many grammatical errors throughout the text (too many to be summarized by myself) that need to be corrected. I give an example below (pg. 3, line 9-10):
"This definition originated from Newton’s theory of particle collision, and had been used by Habib (1976), Paronuzzi (1989) and other scholars." should be rephrased in "This definition, originating from Newton’s theory of particle collision, has been used by Habib (1976), Paronuzzi (1989) and other scholars."

and so on ...

Looking forward in receiving your revised version.

Best regards,
Jean-Philippe Malet

Dear authors,

Thanks for the revised version.

Technically, I do not see any red font in your file (v4) so I cannot pinpoint the changes made.

Please, provide the manuscript with the marked changes foir further consideration.

Best regards

Dear authors,

Thanks for the revised version with the tracked changes. The manuscript is nearly ready for publication, subject to two minor changes:
- I would suggest the authors to add dimensions on the Figures 3c and 3d (as already done for Figure 2)
- The authors should use standard referencing for the units; for instance m.s-1 should be used and not m/s. Please verify for all units through the manuscript.
Best regards,
Jean-Philippe Malet