June 16, 2019, 11:39:49 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Low Yield Nuclear Test - Tragic Accident version 2  (Read 3212 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

April 12, 2019, 04:31:09 AM
Reply #120

Radim

Guest
Why nuclear, why not chemical? Why not seismic weapons, why not biological weapons?
The more I read some stupidity here, the less I wonder.

I don't want to underestimate you, but you're crazy.

Why exactly is the weapon test (gone wrong) theory crazy? It fits the time frame, the behaviour of the people involved including the investigators and we know for sure that bombs and other military equipment was being tested somewhere and sometime in 1959. It is a completely logical line of thought along with the murder theory if we have 9 dead bodies found in this condition. Plausible version of events for me. Needs just some verification just like any other theory.

Guys,
1) LOW attitude? if military drop a a nuclear cartridge than the aircraft which makes drop, must be in very very high attitude.

2) Each nuclear test is a little bit amazing event. Everybody from military and defence goverment want to see and record the efects. Camera staff, photogrpahers, etc.. Take in mind that about the most of Soviet nuclear tests knew also their enemy (USA and west inteligence services. and contra side.
Nuclear tests is also as perceived as boasting event. North Korea is making for example nuclear tests absolutely media open. They demonstrate the force. They show of force.

Where is the presence of observers and delegations? Do you think some generals will go in snow somewhere in cold mountines to watch an effects of nuclear bomb by their own feet without field kitchen? Where are the vehicles prints? Where are the prints of helicopter which moved delegation? Broken bounds, fired cigaretes. Almost everybody at this time smoked a cigarettes, etc, etc..
Guys, at the accident area was nothing founded.

That somebody "found" "some" aluminium plate in Death mountine is because he also bring it there to be interest.

3) I have never seen a nuclear test in difficult terrain - hills, woods.. This makes in flat terrain surface - Again, and again, and again. Military needs to observe the drop point and drop effects. They need to evaluate it. The drop zone area are cordoned. To make a nuclear test you need place observers to see for decimals of kilometers. = flat terrain.


Soviet military was not stupid. Soviet army was one of the strongest army in the world. Maybe the strongest. They were strong because their "top tip" staff was clever and maturity. (now I dont mean some last company sergeant).

They have to followed the internal directions. It is not like some general will wake up in the morning and during morning parade/call he will say: "OK, comrades, today we will make a drop of nuclear weapon nearby the Death mountine...Go and do it!" No, no no no no..

4) Your point: "was being tested somewhere and sometime in 1959".. Of course their were tested! Was time of cold war, 14 years ago from WWII. It is more than sure that some of new soviet weapons were tested somewhere in 1959.
I will not so hard to you if you will say some more silly theory. For example that they were killed (by mistake) because of testing of new artillery howitzer. But all this theorys are wrong and silly.


5) Founded GAMA ray was negligible. They were jsut polluted a bit from history. The quantity they found on clothes was not lethal in any case. By the way, why were not contamined others?

If you will warm your food in microwawe machine and I will take a dozimeter and start measuring, than you will be Gama rayed also. Maybe the  even in a similar amount as like them. They could contamine everywhere (in university during scientific works, etc.) The source of X ray can be everywhere.


According to your investigative analysis:
If you will go to Death Mountine to take measurement, take just classic dosimeter. If you found something in continual surface, after that make radiochemical analysis.
If you will go in Death mountine, take also the iron detector and shovel. Why? It is very very for long time to explain.

But just a little in scople short sentences:
Because If there was according some theorys some violent, than there probably must be weapons. (Guns). To force 9 young strong people without resistant, you need circa 14-20 people without guns. Just by hands or knifes armored.

If there will be 3-5 guys with weapons (gulag prisoners), than it is acceptable. But if there will be a fight without gunshots body wounds, than they probably could shot in the air or in ground to make a treat. So take the iron detector, go and look for shoted munition fragments.
This is maybe logical but It is also wrong. (I think, but it is the most reasonable crime caused by different people in Dyatlavov pass.) But I dont belive to it also. (98% circa).

Radim








« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 04:36:01 AM by Radim »

April 12, 2019, 07:22:40 AM
Reply #121
Offline

gypsy


Why nuclear, why not chemical? Why not seismic weapons, why not biological weapons?
The more I read some stupidity here, the less I wonder.

I don't want to underestimate you, but you're crazy.

Why exactly is the weapon test (gone wrong) theory crazy? It fits the time frame, the behaviour of the people involved including the investigators and we know for sure that bombs and other military equipment was being tested somewhere and sometime in 1959. It is a completely logical line of thought along with the murder theory if we have 9 dead bodies found in this condition. Plausible version of events for me. Needs just some verification just like any other theory.

Guys,
1) LOW attitude? if military drop a a nuclear cartridge than the aircraft which makes drop, must be in very very high attitude.

2) Each nuclear test is a little bit amazing event. Everybody from military and defence goverment want to see and record the efects. Camera staff, photogrpahers, etc.. Take in mind that about the most of Soviet nuclear tests knew also their enemy (USA and west inteligence services. and contra side.
Nuclear tests is also as perceived as boasting event. North Korea is making for example nuclear tests absolutely media open. They demonstrate the force. They show of force.

Where is the presence of observers and delegations? Do you think some generals will go in snow somewhere in cold mountines to watch an effects of nuclear bomb by their own feet without field kitchen? Where are the vehicles prints? Where are the prints of helicopter which moved delegation? Broken bounds, fired cigaretes. Almost everybody at this time smoked a cigarettes, etc, etc..
Guys, at the accident area was nothing founded.

That somebody "found" "some" aluminium plate in Death mountine is because he also bring it there to be interest.

3) I have never seen a nuclear test in difficult terrain - hills, woods.. This makes in flat terrain surface - Again, and again, and again. Military needs to observe the drop point and drop effects. They need to evaluate it. The drop zone area are cordoned. To make a nuclear test you need place observers to see for decimals of kilometers. = flat terrain.


Soviet military was not stupid. Soviet army was one of the strongest army in the world. Maybe the strongest. They were strong because their "top tip" staff was clever and maturity. (now I dont mean some last company sergeant).

They have to followed the internal directions. It is not like some general will wake up in the morning and during morning parade/call he will say: "OK, comrades, today we will make a drop of nuclear weapon nearby the Death mountine...Go and do it!" No, no no no no..

4) Your point: "was being tested somewhere and sometime in 1959".. Of course their were tested! Was time of cold war, 14 years ago from WWII. It is more than sure that some of new soviet weapons were tested somewhere in 1959.
I will not so hard to you if you will say some more silly theory. For example that they were killed (by mistake) because of testing of new artillery howitzer. But all this theorys are wrong and silly.


5) Founded GAMA ray was negligible. They were jsut polluted a bit from history. The quantity they found on clothes was not lethal in any case. By the way, why were not contamined others?

If you will warm your food in microwawe machine and I will take a dozimeter and start measuring, than you will be Gama rayed also. Maybe the  even in a similar amount as like them. They could contamine everywhere (in university during scientific works, etc.) The source of X ray can be everywhere.


According to your investigative analysis:
If you will go to Death Mountine to take measurement, take just classic dosimeter. If you found something in continual surface, after that make radiochemical analysis.
If you will go in Death mountine, take also the iron detector and shovel. Why? It is very very for long time to explain.

But just a little in scople short sentences:
Because If there was according some theorys some violent, than there probably must be weapons. (Guns). To force 9 young strong people without resistant, you need circa 14-20 people without guns. Just by hands or knifes armored.

If there will be 3-5 guys with weapons (gulag prisoners), than it is acceptable. But if there will be a fight without gunshots body wounds, than they probably could shot in the air or in ground to make a treat. So take the iron detector, go and look for shoted munition fragments.
This is maybe logical but It is also wrong. (I think, but it is the most reasonable crime caused by different people in Dyatlavov pass.) But I dont belive to it also. (98% circa).

Radim

1. We do not know what kind of device was allegedly used or dropped from. It is just a theory that fits a good part of the evidence. Yes, it is also true that much is left for speculation because the investigators did not do a very good job and wrote a weird conclusion.

2./3. Only successful nuclear tests are amazing and suitable for demonstration . I am pretty sure that a test event gone wrong would be classified just like any other military activity (it is actually written in legal documents) . As written before, it was not necessarily a large device and it did not necessarily explode on the ground.

No observers or delegations - maybe the "device was dropped on the wrong place? Not so long ago, USAF hit Prague instead of Dresden due to navigation error. Pilots are not stupid but errors happen all the time, not to mention during testing of new technologies. Especially night bombing was far from accurate at that time. I wrote some time before that even a threat of being killed from the air is enough to trigger weird behaviour and/or possible conflicts among people.

The alluminium plate - I think it was explained before that is from later time than 1959, unrelated to the DPI.

4. If the Soviet officers said that there was no test and no military incident in the area instead of confiscating the evidence and introducing the exclusion zone for 3 years, there would me less speculation about this version. It is again a legitimate version to consider for investigation. There is a suspicion for sure.

5. hard to conclude, we do not have the exact numbers measured in 1959, only testimonies. And yes, the clothes could have been contaminated before the incident. Again, no data available to compare.

Apart from taking measurement or samples, the line of "new" investigation could start with declassifying of documents related to that time and area. Every single sortie flown or test was recorded and archived. However it may be too late and all evidence destroyed. Is was absolutely legitimate to open criminal investigation, just the standard was very poor as if the investigators and/or prosecutors were not willing to solve the case properly, or were told not to. The theory of military involvement could be absolutely wrong, but we do not know that until this version is either confirmed or ruled out. The different causes of death and nature of injuries suggests human involvement in some way, I personally think that an animal attack or natural phenomenon is not enough (still could have played a part) to explain everything.


April 12, 2019, 08:21:09 AM
Reply #122

Radim

Guest
Sorry to say that, but this is still the same old song.
You are trying to representative the most difficult theory among you accept, that this expedition pass was caused by something very similar - elk(s) attack.

I quit this conversation, because it is very very silly and weak theory.

Radim

April 12, 2019, 08:47:16 AM
Reply #123
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Sorry to say that, but this is still the same old song.
You are trying to representative the most difficult theory among you accept, that this expedition pass was caused by something very similar - elk(s) attack.

I quit this conversation, because it is very very silly and weak theory.

Radim

You obviously haven’t understood the underpinning posts. 

A radiochemical analysts of the tree rings will prove or disprove this theory.  The same test was accurately demonstrated at Hiroshima.  Your assumptions and own personal view will not prove or disprove anything.

By the way you did not answer any of my questions?

There is a simple equation that is important:

What is reasonable = function(mindset)

Regards
Star man


May 26, 2019, 08:04:18 AM
Reply #125
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Quote
A neutron bomb, officially defined as a type of enhanced radiation weapon, is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself

I would think there would still be a significant explosion.. which there wasnt.  Also, you would think this would create MASS amounts of radiation... which there wasn't. 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 27, 2019, 03:22:47 PM
Reply #126
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote
A neutron bomb, officially defined as a type of enhanced radiation weapon, is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself

I would think there would still be a significant explosion.. which there wasnt.  Also, you would think this would create MASS amounts of radiation... which there wasn't.

The explosion would have been several kilotonnes.  Still capable of destroying normal civil structures within 600m.  But if it was such a device it is likely to have detonated on the other side of the summit of Kholat Syakhl, and the tent would have been shielded from the worst of it.  If the explosion was 1 to 2 km away then the over pressure at the tent would only be several psi - not enough to cause significant damage to people.

Radiation.  Initially radiation levels would have been high.  But would decay quickly and be safe after two weeks.  Well before the search and rescue party arrived.  Also if there was fallout on the snow then it could have been scouted away by the wind in the same way it scoured away the snow around the compacted foot prints.  Also if there was further snow fall that could easily cover up the fallout and making it difficult to detect.

If there was a low yield device and significant fallout then the tree rings would hold the answers.

Regards

Star man

May 28, 2019, 03:58:52 PM
Reply #127
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/society/138398-dyatlov_pass/

The construction was found at a distance of ten kilometers from the site  !  ?  Thats a long way from the site. And its highly unlikely that any Nuclear Tests took place any where near the site.
DB

May 28, 2019, 04:02:11 PM
Reply #128
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Quote
A neutron bomb, officially defined as a type of enhanced radiation weapon, is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself

I would think there would still be a significant explosion.. which there wasnt.  Also, you would think this would create MASS amounts of radiation... which there wasn't.

The explosion would have been several kilotonnes.  Still capable of destroying normal civil structures within 600m.  But if it was such a device it is likely to have detonated on the other side of the summit of Kholat Syakhl, and the tent would have been shielded from the worst of it.  If the explosion was 1 to 2 km away then the over pressure at the tent would only be several psi - not enough to cause significant damage to people.

Radiation.  Initially radiation levels would have been high.  But would decay quickly and be safe after two weeks.  Well before the search and rescue party arrived.  Also if there was fallout on the snow then it could have been scouted away by the wind in the same way it scoured away the snow around the compacted foot prints.  Also if there was further snow fall that could easily cover up the fallout and making it difficult to detect.

If there was a low yield device and significant fallout then the tree rings would hold the answers.

Regards

Star man

There was no Nuclear explosion of any kind near the site of the Dyatlov Incident.  Too many things point to the Nuclear explosion theory as being highly unlikely.
DB

May 28, 2019, 05:17:24 PM
Reply #129
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident. 
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!

May 29, 2019, 12:34:27 PM
Reply #130
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

May 30, 2019, 12:19:56 PM
Reply #131
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?
DB

May 31, 2019, 02:09:32 AM
Reply #132
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

May 31, 2019, 01:04:36 PM
Reply #133
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.
DB

May 31, 2019, 04:09:27 PM
Reply #134
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man


June 03, 2019, 01:03:44 PM
Reply #135
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man

I wonder if the Authorities have ever tested for such Tree Samples  !  ?  I mean its kind of the thing you would expect them to do as a matter of course in such an Investigation, where Geiger Counters have gone off the scale, according to Ivanov  !  ? 
DB

June 04, 2019, 11:48:15 PM
Reply #136
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Wouldn't an explosion of that magnitude leave a large footprint on the ground even if detonated at some altitude?   Look at the Tunguska incident.

I think it would depend on whether there were any trees within 600 metres of the explosion on the south west side of the mountain.  If there were no trees then it would just melt a bit is snow and blow it around.  After 3 weeks you wouldn't notice anything obvious as snow could over up the evidence.

Regards

Star man

Surely any explosion of that type would have severely damaged the Tent   !  ?

The tent like the tourists would have been sheltered behind the summit.

Regards

Star man

As an example of why hills may not provide the shelter that many people expect, I provide the following example ; At Mogi, 7 miles from X in Nagasaki, over steep hills over 600 feet high, about 10% of the glass came out. An interesting effect was noted at Mogi; eyewitnesses said that they thought a raid was being made on the place; one big flash was seen, then a loud roar, followed at several second intervals by half a dozen other loud reports, from all directions. These successive reports were obviously reflections from the hills surrounding Mogi.

I doubt there would be much in the way of debris on Kholat Syakhl.  Maybe some loose rocks and ice.  The shock waves can be deflected around objects but it would be weakened and unlikely to cause any issues at 3 psi over pressure.  Actually it may be enough to cause a snow slide or snow slab to shift?  Reflections of the shock wave are unlikely to be amplified over the terrain.

Even so a nuclear detonation is far from a simple explanation and therefore has a low probability.  But a test of the  tree rings around the area could provide evidence for or against.

The low yield theory is based on the detection of radiation on all the clothing samples, the decision to close the area for 3 years and what seems to be a significant effort to cover up what happened.  The theory has sufficient scope to explain the events that night.  But, it's not my hot favourite.  I think there is a more simple explanation, but exactly what I don't know.  The infrasound theory is looking to be more credible the more Inthink about it.  Also the snow slide.  Neither explains the radiation, or cover up though, but they may be circumstantial or coincidental? 

I wouldn't rule out the low yield nuke test though unless the tree rings are tested.

Regards

Star man

Star man

I wonder if the Authorities have ever tested for such Tree Samples  !  ?  I mean its kind of the thing you would expect them to do as a matter of course in such an Investigation, where Geiger Counters have gone off the scale, according to Ivanov  !  ?

The tree rings test was successfully demonstrated at Hiroshima.  Fixed sr 90 and mobile Cs.

Regards
Star man

June 05, 2019, 09:18:35 PM
Reply #137
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
I think examining tree samples is an outstanding idea.     thumb1
All theories are flawed.......    Get Behind Me Satan !!!