Teddy provided me with this link to a question and answer session on a Russian forum in 2013 - http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin was a member of the first group to reach the tent.
I've picked up on the discussion of "snow circles" :--
Question: In one of the interviews you said that not far from the tents of dyatlovtsy a small platform of blown snow in the form of a circle was well viewed. Do you think it could be a trail from a helicopter landing there? Then you saw the helicopters landing and flying away many times, can you compare, they left the same traces? Or the snow was melted and icy, i.e. as if melted. But again in the form of a circle?
M. Sharavin: As regards the area of blown snow, this was reported in a telephone message from searches.
The circle of blown snow was more than from the rotor of the helicopter. Later, this notebook with a record of all messages from searches was withdrawn by "competent" bodies, the room was closed and the duty was discontinued. This is evidenced by one of the on-duty then Galya ..., who made repentance, that is, a statement 50 years later.
So a circle of blown snow larger than the rotor of a helicopter, maybe perhaps from a much larger helicopter... maybe a Mil Mi-6 size of helicopter?... Or a snow equivalent of a crop circle = ball lightning?
Whatever it was very pertinent to what really happened as the radiogram reporting it was removed during the confiscation.
and later on :
A question from D. Levanov, a participant in the winter hike to the pass in January-February 2014. The question is very simple. Look at the photo, see how much snow piled on the tent in 10 days. (Naturally, the weather on the pass in 1959 and 2014 was different. It can be said that in 2014 the weather was clear with weak wind and no precipitation, it is a fact supposedly in 1959 there was precipitation, gale). Dyatlovskaya tent, as we assume, stood on the slope for 25 days, i.e. 2.5 times more. It can be assumed that the level of snow deposited was 2 times more. Question: How different is the snow level on the tent and in front of the entrance? Is the nature of the snow cover on and in front of the tent? And again: where exactly was the ice ax, which they found, and how much was he sunk in the snow? "... an ice ax, before entering the tent .." It would be great, if clarified, to remember exactly where the ice ax was: lay, was stuck in marked snow or in a recess right in front, about how much was stuck half, / 3, or completely. It is clear that now it is very difficult to do this, a lot has been in his memory during this time. But maybe ... And when they found him exactly, 26 (when they only found the tent and dug it up) or 27 (when they took pictures and skis were already moved) I understand that the questions are repeated, but suddenly Mikhail Petrovich will be able to clarify something. M. Sharavin: Dmitry, Questions are clear. First - It would be more usual for me to consider a snapshot of a tent if I turn the camera lens to the left. In addition, I lack the free space in front of the tent. In front of the tent, I see a drop in the level of snow, which was swept away by the wind, meeting an obstacle in the form of a tent. But this lowering of snow was also in front of the tent, where I lack the picture space in front of the tent. So there was an ice ax, stuck in firn snow on the third part of the cutting. A little further 1.5m. A pair of skis were stuck together in the snow. In addition, I see in the picture the fluff of loose snow, And we saw a circle of firn snow, and now in front of the tent from its left wall is somewhat larger than it was then. And lowering the level of snow directly in front of the cloth was not. We found the ice ax on the 26th and used it to free the tent from the snow. We didn’t move skis on the 26th. But in the photograph taken the next day and attributed to Brubnitsynu, these skis stand next to the front and rear of the tent. We didn’t put skis there and it’s not clear to us who did it. Moreover, on the 27th, Brusnitsyn could not take this picture, since he was at the site of the camp, behind the pass.[/i]
This sounds like the famous hot spot? Firn is an intermediate condition between snow and ice. Ball lightning?
Sorry WAB - are you saying you couldn't find the tent after a month in those conditions??
Hi.Teddy provided me with this link to a question and answer session on a Russian forum in 2013 - http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin (http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin) was a member of the first group to reach the tent.
I've picked up on the discussion of "snow circles" :--
Question: In one of the interviews you said that not far from the tents of dyatlovtsy a small platform of blown snow in the form of a circle was well viewed. Do you think it could be a trail from a helicopter landing there? Then you saw the helicopters landing and flying away many times, can you compare, they left the same traces? Or the snow was melted and icy, i.e. as if melted. But again in the form of a circle?
M. Sharavin: As regards the area of blown snow, this was reported in a telephone message from searches.
The circle of blown snow was more than from the rotor of the helicopter. Later, this notebook with a record of all messages from searches was withdrawn by "competent" bodies, the room was closed and the duty was discontinued. This is evidenced by one of the on-duty then Galya ..., who made repentance, that is, a statement 50 years later.
So a circle of blown snow larger than the rotor of a helicopter, maybe perhaps from a much larger helicopter... maybe a Mil Mi-6 size of helicopter?... Or a snow equivalent of a crop circle = ball lightning?
1.I am many times talked to Michael Sharvinym and he of all has once tine told about this circle from the helicopter. And it is from illiterate giving by Piskaroeva. He did not speak about any fireball and did not think at all.
2.I have read attentively all questions which Piskareva set to Michael Sharavin and рis answers in Russian and have understood that it is made very much not skilled. Almost on all questions negative answers or its these questions are given did not concern. It turns out that from all this interview it is impossible receive even few trustworthy information which is directed on studying of case of Dyatlov group, and the rest is conversations on "lyrical" themes. It is very characteristic for Piskareva, it very much not the competent person which tries receive answers to the complicated questions which essence she does not understand. I already wrote earlier: that who asks, should be more competent or equal on literacy of the one who answers them. The nonsense otherwise turns out that we and see in this case. The person who understands nothing in aerodynamics and operation of helicopters (and as did not see it close) asks question to the one who knows bit more because itself saw the helicopter and flied on it (as the passenger). The answer which is simply wrong representation that he saw (or in what its memory has been deformed) has as result poured down. Because it does not happen in the nature.
3.I already wrote in this forum that Mi-6 here cannot be present in any way. For February, 01st of 1959 them have made only 2 pieces, and one flied only. It tested about the Lyubertsy city (it is about the Moscow city).
4.At helicopter landing f any circles it is never formed. It is necessary have good knowledge of aerodynamics that it would be possible understand this elementary knowledge. I and more he did not tell it talk to Michael Sharavin and he never talk not never about it. He is metallurgist by trade therefore he could not understand it.
5.Galina Batalova speaks about phone records of conversations from Ivdel at very beginning of searches. As to me prompted modern public prosecutors with which we are discussed about case Dyatlov group, it could be also because for the period of carrying out of consequence the information on its course should be closed and it there could be prosecutors of Sverdlovsk who should watch observance of mode of carrying out of business. These workers should be from the deputy chief department Okishev was which.
But the exact information in view of that is not present therefore here there can be different variants. One is clear only: it not attempt that hide, and anxiety of chiefs (or Offices of Public Prosecutor, or UPI administration, or still what that) that the superfluous information would not extend. However it and so extended, because conversations between people cannot be forbidden.Whatever it was very pertinent to what really happened as the radiogram reporting it was removed during the confiscation.
Was such radiogram never in the course of searches, therefore it and is absent. What it is never was cannot be gone.
**** - I would like ask participants of searches result only trustworthy information (which has authentic source or it is confirmed by documents) and analyze everything that they write on reliability. Otherwise it turns out that who that at first thinks out the next fable (or finds it in the Internet, especially in conversations between 3 … 4 interlocutors consistently), and then it should be denied. Otherwise all who discusses this theme will constantly go in circle and all will leave from understanding, instead of further what come nearer.and later on :
A question from D. Levanov, a participant in the winter hike to the pass in January-February 2014. The question is very simple. Look at the photo, see how much snow piled on the tent in 10 days. (Naturally, the weather on the pass in 1959 and 2014 was different. It can be said that in 2014 the weather was clear with weak wind and no precipitation, it is a fact supposedly in 1959 there was precipitation, gale). Dyatlovskaya tent, as we assume, stood on the slope for 25 days, i.e. 2.5 times more. It can be assumed that the level of snow deposited was 2 times more. Question: How different is the snow level on the tent and in front of the entrance? Is the nature of the snow cover on and in front of the tent? And again: where exactly was the ice ax, which they found, and how much was he sunk in the snow? "... an ice ax, before entering the tent .." It would be great, if clarified, to remember exactly where the ice ax was: lay, was stuck in marked snow or in a recess right in front, about how much was stuck half, / 3, or completely. It is clear that now it is very difficult to do this, a lot has been in his memory during this time. But maybe ... And when they found him exactly, 26 (when they only found the tent and dug it up) or 27 (when they took pictures and skis were already moved) I understand that the questions are repeated, but suddenly Mikhail Petrovich will be able to clarify something. M. Sharavin: Dmitry, Questions are clear. First - It would be more usual for me to consider a snapshot of a tent if I turn the camera lens to the left. In addition, I lack the free space in front of the tent. In front of the tent, I see a drop in the level of snow, which was swept away by the wind, meeting an obstacle in the form of a tent. But this lowering of snow was also in front of the tent, where I lack the picture space in front of the tent. So there was an ice ax, stuck in firn snow on the third part of the cutting. A little further 1.5m. A pair of skis were stuck together in the snow. In addition, I see in the picture the fluff of loose snow, And we saw a circle of firn snow, and now in front of the tent from its left wall is somewhat larger than it was then. And lowering the level of snow directly in front of the cloth was not. We found the ice ax on the 26th and used it to free the tent from the snow. We didn’t move skis on the 26th. But in the photograph taken the next day and attributed to Brubnitsynu, these skis stand next to the front and rear of the tent. We didn’t put skis there and it’s not clear to us who did it. Moreover, on the 27th, Brusnitsyn could not take this picture, since he was at the site of the camp, behind the pass.
This sounds like the famous hot spot? Firn is an intermediate condition between snow and ice. Ball lightning?
I constantly should correct many participants of search because they constantly confuse terms "наст - ice crust" and “фирн -glacier snow”. Glacier snow on this place was not and does not happen basically. Because glacier snow is a long-term snow which does not thaw in the summer. Such snow on this place is not present. The ice crust in zone where there are no trees in current of winter happens very rigid and is often covered by crust which reminds ice. But it is not ice.
It is not ask only Karelin, Bartolomey and Budrin. All of them very qualified travellers also have degree of the Master. Many other participants of search have no experience of mountain snow and extreme ski travel, therefore and can confuse terms.
*) Dmitry Levanov was in during 1 day (2 or 3 hours) on pass in February 2014 for 1 or 2 days before as we have come there together with Shura. But we there were the whole week and at us other opinion concerning snow on tent and, why it such. I resulted earlier comparative photos of our model tent that day when we there have put it, after 2 days, after 2 weeks and through ? Weeks after. If I now find direct reference I it I will result, if I do not find this reference (at me not enough time for answers at forum) all can find it search in my messages in the spring of last year.
I have not found old reference, but now ladies others on 3 of 4 conditions of tent:
1.
(https://d.radikal.ru/d14/1904/dd/2c0613a74891t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d14/1904/dd/2c0613a74891.jpg)
It is Shura prepares testing tent in Moscow before departure to pass.
2.
(https://c.radikal.ru/c25/1904/2a/2a30e2f52670t.jpg) (https://c.radikal.ru/c25/1904/2a/2a30e2f52670.jpg)
This photo is testing tent after it have just established on slope of North Ural Mountains.
3.
(https://c.radikal.ru/c39/1904/e6/3f0ef19e7f74t.jpg) (https://c.radikal.ru/c39/1904/e6/3f0ef19e7f74.jpg)
It is view to tent after 2 days there was blizzard.
4.
(https://d.radikal.ru/d43/1904/7d/aa2e8334dd77t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d43/1904/7d/aa2e8334dd77.jpg)
It is view to tent after 2 weeks as its installation it during February 2014.
5. Unfortunately I could not find tent view after 1 month after its installation, but it only small differed from the previous view.
Hi.
So i'm reading from your answers :-
- There was a circle and it was reported. But the disappearance of the record is not significant.
- There was one operational Mi-6 based near Moscow approximately 1000km away.
- There were two circles, the large snow circle and one of icy snow (incorrectly stated as firn) near the tent.
Some thoughts - All the theory needs is one Mi-6! Moscow to DP would be 4 hours flying time? If the mission made a big effort to cover up it's presence the one thing it couldn't cover up would be the blown snow at takeoff?
Hi.
So i'm reading from your answers :-
- There was a circle and it was reported. But the disappearance of the record is not significant.
Whence you know, what it (circle) was then, if Michael Sharavin has realised, what he was mistaken in it?
And how record if it was not can disappear? I speak about record about this circle. I have explained it the rest earlier.Ok, i'm struggling with the translation. At the interview Sharavin confirmed his previous statements that the snow circle existed and was reported. But you are saying that since then he has retracted this?
- There was one operational Mi-6 based near Moscow approximately 1000km away.
There is distance on straight line about 2000 km. Check up it on good map. The modern plane with speed of 850 km/hour flies more than 2 hours only to Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk).
And this is small distance, on your concept? Especially it exists for pre-production model which only passes tests for flight possibility?Apologies 2000km = 1200 miles!. Yes it's 2 x a small distance! kewl1 If the machine is in service then it is there to be used.
- There were two circles, the large snow circle and one of icy snow (incorrectly stated as firn) near the tent.
Who has told to you about “two circles”? There it is not formed any circle if it concerns landing or helicopter launch. Here is picture landing of more powerful helicopter - Mi-8:
The Mi-8 was a replacement for Mi-4? It can only lift a third of the payload of the mighty Mi-6? (4 tonnes versus 12 tonnes). In fact an Mi-6 could lift a Mi-8 carrying it's maximum payload!?
(https://b.radikal.ru/b04/1904/ed/2350c320d60at.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b04/1904/ed/2350c320d60a.jpg)
Show, where the circle here is formed?
This that place where helicopters in 1959 sat down. In other place helicopters there cannot sit down, because there are no conditions for this purpose.
This place is located ~ in 1000 m from tent.
Character of snow which wrongly (!) name “фирн- firn -(glacier snow)” it is well visible in the same picture.
Sharavin talks about two circles? The large one that was reported by radio and a circle of "firn" snow next to the tent. This appears to be the "hot spot" seen in photographs?Some thoughts - All the theory needs is one Mi-6! Moscow to DP would be 4 hours flying time? If the mission made a big effort to cover up it's presence the one thing it couldn't cover up would be the blown snow at takeoff?
1.Nobody will overtake any helicopter which only has started take place trial runs on any distance from test airdrome.2.To place of events not two hours of summer, and it will turn out not less than 6 hours if competently consider flight route. For the helicopter which by that moment flew less than 6 hours, it is nonsense.Not nonsense. Your history of this machine is opposed to the history i am finding on the web.
First flight of the V-6 occurred in September of 1957 with test pilot N.B. Leshin at the controls. The V-6 ultimately graduated to become a full-production model by 1960 - https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=283#history (https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=283#history)
3.Who and what for tried hide there, it is not known for what purpose and with what intentions?Yes that is the mystery we are discussing on this website.
4.Traces from arrival and helicopter flying away there does not remain in some hours after it has departed. Under any weather conditions. There such conditions.The footsteps lasted for 3 weeks? A helicopter would be producing hot exhaust gases that could warm the snow "fixing" the circle for a considerable period. The Mi-6 used two turboshaft engines, basically two jet engines. That's a lot of heat being blown down on the snow.
What for that that to hide it is artificial, if anything and so does not remain?I think that there is no sense further develop conspyrology theory, only for this purpose, what continue senseless conversation. I will not participate in it further.Perhaps it was ball lightning then. There's not much else that fits.
[/q]
Ball Lightning?? grin1Hey, great minds think alike.... declare1
This is the hot spot, on the right circled. The "firn" is not proper firn according to WAB but looks to me as if it is slush that has been carved by the wind before refreezing. N.B. people dispute this. But the proponents ask what turned it to slush?
(http://www.viafanzine.jor.br/002imag/03_13/dyatlov4_cedro.jpg)
This is the hot spot, on the right circled. The "firn" is not proper firn according to WAB but looks to me as if it is slush that has been carved by the wind before refreezing. N.B. people dispute this. But the proponents ask what turned it to slush?
(http://www.viafanzine.jor.br/002imag/03_13/dyatlov4_cedro.jpg)
How can you tell that that is an hot spot ! ?
Is that photo if the tent new?
(https://i.ibb.co/4VRKqGr/big.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KrxbPkv)
Is it just me or the "snow" is really strange looking ,really like ice. From the photos if WAB everything looks normal,but here it doesn't look natural at all. First it looks like piled and pressed with shovels and then water applied on top - the way they prepare ski pistes .
Also could someone familiar with snow formations and types explain why there really is kind of flat icy looking circle here:
(https://i.ibb.co/Nxqq5gf/IMG-20190412-214914.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2qrrx0R)
(https://i.ibb.co/pW0n5vW/IMG-20190412-214806.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dbW7x0b)
And WABs photos for comparison how different all is :
(https://i.ibb.co/9wnT2Qp/aa2e8334dd77t.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/LvVqmzw/3f0ef19e7f74t.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Teddy provided me with this link to a question and answer session on a Russian forum in 2013 - http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin (http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin) was a ...
Some thoughts - All the theory needs is one Mi-6! Moscow to DP would be 4 hours flying time? If the mission made a big effort to cover up it's presence the one thing it couldn't cover up would be the blown snow at takeoff?
Dear Nigel Evans!
I already tried answer these 2 your messages, which (in my opinion) are very unsuccessfully formatted, but it did not manage be made. I two times wrote the answer, have spent for it about 3 hours of time, but they were gone, because time taken away by the forum engine has been exceeded. If you I as format your answers I can not answer you. Please try write shorter messages and not insert the text into body of old messages. It is very pity to me time which was gone.
Thanks.
This is the hot spot, on the right circled. The "firn" is not proper firn according to WAB but looks to me as if it is slush that has been carved by the wind before refreezing. N.B. people dispute this. But the proponents ask what turned it to slush?It looks like frozen slush to me too. But I see a circle where I have put the red line.
Hi, very sorry to hear that you wasted three hours, not good. But it's quite unnecessary? You can login with an indefinite session that wont time out?Teddy provided me with this link to a question and answer session on a Russian forum in 2013 - http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin (http://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtmlSharavin) was a ...
Some thoughts - All the theory needs is one Mi-6! Moscow to DP would be 4 hours flying time? If the mission made a big effort to cover up it's presence the one thing it couldn't cover up would be the blown snow at takeoff?
Dear Nigel Evans!
I already tried answer these 2 your messages, which (in my opinion) are very unsuccessfully formatted, but it did not manage be made. I two times wrote the answer, have spent for it about 3 hours of time, but they were gone, because time taken away by the forum engine has been exceeded. If you I as format your answers I can not answer you. Please try write shorter messages and not insert the text into body of old messages. It is very pity to me time which was gone.
Thanks.
Yes it looks like it's refrozen slush to me. Got a feeling WAB has a different explanation kewl1 The snow on the tent was very hard apparently. In his interview Koptelov says that the rescue team discussed warming as an explanation for the evidence including persistent footsteps.This is the hot spot, on the right circled. The "firn" is not proper firn according to WAB but looks to me as if it is slush that has been carved by the wind before refreezing. N.B. people dispute this. But the proponents ask what turned it to slush?It looks like frozen slush to me too. But I see a circle where I have put the red line.
If I look only in that "circle" I would say that this is a frozen sea with waves or glacier snow ,but we know there is no glacier there and no temperatures above zero to cause a slush. And that slush looks frozen on top of the tent like the tent has been submerged in that watery substance ...
(https://i.ibb.co/7gr0zxB/500-F-137390010-V1-DQLXlot5-KHPF3-THwj-AZ6-Xxu-N0-L6ej-S.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/09xqskh/videoblocks-frozen-sea-near-the-shore-in-cold-winter-small-ice-floe-moving-in-waves-hzgeb-xvf-thumbnail-full01.png) (https://ibb.co/8xHMYJ6)
Nigel, you said you also believe in military cover up, but if it was a ball lightening why would the authorities try to cover it?No i believe that the evidence can be explained by ball lightning or military action or probably more likely a combination. Semyon's photos particularly Plane1/Plane2 are key
Your theory seem to explain evidences but there are so many coincidences in it that it is highly unprobable. Universe don't work this way,like in a movie ...too many thing have to coincide and lets be honest ,it never happens like this. Real life is pretty chaotic .Whatever happened, it starts with improbable and gets less likely... kewl1
| Slobtsov group | - 5 people |
| Karelib group | - 5 people |
| Akselrod group | - 5 people |
| Captain Chernyshov group | - 5 people |
| Mansi Stepan Kurikov group | - 4 people |
| group of operatives with specially trained dogs | |
| leaded by Sr Lt Moyseev | - 2 people |
| radio operator of the North-Ural expedition G. Nevolin |
Military - yes.
I was saying all the coincidences with ball lightening, tanks on top of hikers, etc... Just the scenario seems unprobable.. Same as aliens waking up an yeti. They both may exist ,but both meeting each other is too much...
Ball lightening is a rare phenomenon ,
Semyon's photos...
tank passing through your body in a vast wilderness is even more rare. Both of them happening is too much too :)That's probably why they built the den in the ravine...
So the theory is that this area is very "carved" = raised areas throwing shadows :-
(https://i.ibb.co/S6mgq7q/hotspot-zoom-2.png) (https://ibb.co/grW8sFs) www d11 org (https://freeonlinedice.com/)
So the question is, why is it so lumpy? And one answer is that it is wind carved slush that has refrozen.
Hence it is named the "hotspot".
And then you have the question what raised it's temperature to make it slush?
Nigel, you said you also believe in military cover up, but if it was a ball lightening why would the authorities try to cover it?No i believe that the evidence can be explained by ball lightning or military action or probably more likely a combination. Semyon's photos particularly Plane1/Plane2 are key
Is this a photo of a self illuminating object hovering above the peak or just water damage? Is it a missile? Well if the latter where is the light coming from?
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Zolotaryov-camera-11.jpg)
Is that a cloud of snow underneath? Is that corner part of the hill?
If the former then as well as emitting radiation in the visible region it could be emitting in the microwave (radar) region and then you have a narrative for a missile attack and an urgent need to transport reconnaissance vehicle(s) to the location. Then you have a good explanation for spending three months triple probing 1500 hectares of mountain for proof of wreckage under the guise of searching for bodies (which was also desirable but possibly not the main purpose). If you read the case files they initially used metal detectors to "search for the bodies". When the metal detection failed to "find any bodies" they switched to avalanche probing which would also detect plastics, fibreglass etc as well as bodies.
So a good narrative is that they misunderstood natural electro magnetic radiation as an ingress into their airspace by an unknown craft and then spent a lot of effort trying to find pieces of it after attacking it with missiles. The DPI group just being unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and accidentally killed. It's possible that the military were unaware of the groups demise before discovery by civilian groups. Then they have little room for maneuver so just they have to summon the police investigator to Moscow and order him to front an accidental death coverup (or else).
Your theory seem to explain evidences but there are so many coincidences in it that it is highly unprobable. Universe don't work this way,like in a movie ...too many thing have to coincide and lets be honest ,it never happens like this. Real life is pretty chaotic .Whatever happened, it starts with improbable and gets less likely... kewl1
I think i'm getting close, look at this - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-36-39
"27.02. All groups from the remaining areas were transferred on the pass between the Peaks 880 1079, and a base camp for searches parties was set up below the forest boundary.In total the camp consisted of:
Slobtsov group - 5 people Karelib group - 5 people Akselrod group - 5 people Later arrived:
Captain Chernyshov group - 5 people Mansi Stepan Kurikov group - 4 people group of operatives with specially trained dogs leaded by Sr Lt Moyseev - 2 people radio operator of the North-Ural expedition G. Nevolin
group of Master of Sports from Moscow Bardin, Baskin and Shuleshko and with them Korolev (Sverdlovsk).
group of cadets of the sergeant school of Ivdellag under the orders of the Sr Lt Potapov - 10 people.
group of sappers with mine detectors under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel Shestopalov - 7 people.
Ahead of all of the groups was the master of sports E. N. Maslennikov, captain A. Chernyshev became the deputy.
All the rescuers involved, taking into account the transfer of people between the Ivdel camps - about 30-35 people.Initially, the search was conducted in the most probable direction of finding the missing hikers."
So most of the group are civilians, cadets, master of sports AND! a group of 7 sappers with mine detectors independently under the orders of a Lieutenant Colonel, to look for dead people?
Ho hum.
[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Your argument is not helped with the Eagle photo being extremely similar to reports from credible witnesses (including a meteorologist) of a "light surrounded by a mist".
Its FILM DAMAGE or contamination.
[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
Your argument is not helped with the Eagle photo being extremely similar to reports from credible witnesses (including a meteorologist) of a "light surrounded by a mist".
Its FILM DAMAGE or contamination.
I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
A good narrative to explain all of this is that they attacked a natural object emitting in the visible and radar regions of the electro magnetic spectrum above Kholat Syakhl (Semyon's Plane1/2 perhaps) with SAM's (possibly low yield nuclear) in the belief that they had an incursion into their airspace. 1958 was a record year for sunspots and attendant geomagnetic energy. That gives you the signs of nitric acid and an area downwind of unusually warmed snow. Then you need a thorough investigation to determine what it was that you fired at. If it was nothing then this has to be proven with an extensive/exhaustive search of the area led by a senior staff officer and KGB personnel assisted with civilians. The use of civilians hints at division within the state and military over the point of the exercise with the KGB being isolated in considering the project necessary and the military reluctant to release manpower. So they used civilian manpower under the guise of a hunt to find all the bodies. Once they had searched 1500 hectares of mountain for debris they finally turned their attention to the ravine.
You've got to be joking. lol1Your argument is not helped with the Eagle photo being extremely similar to reports from credible witnesses (including a meteorologist) of a "light surrounded by a mist".
Its FILM DAMAGE or contamination.
Strange looking light and wheres the mist ?
Why wouldn't they fire at unknown objects, isn't that what the missiles are for? The Soviets were extremely irritated by U2 spy planes flying over their airspace out of reach of their SAMs (until 1960). It was the Cold War.I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
A good narrative to explain all of this is that they attacked a natural object emitting in the visible and radar regions of the electro magnetic spectrum above Kholat Syakhl (Semyon's Plane1/2 perhaps) with SAM's (possibly low yield nuclear) in the belief that they had an incursion into their airspace. 1958 was a record year for sunspots and attendant geomagnetic energy. That gives you the signs of nitric acid and an area downwind of unusually warmed snow. Then you need a thorough investigation to determine what it was that you fired at. If it was nothing then this has to be proven with an extensive/exhaustive search of the area led by a senior staff officer and KGB personnel assisted with civilians. The use of civilians hints at division within the state and military over the point of the exercise with the KGB being isolated in considering the project necessary and the military reluctant to release manpower. So they used civilian manpower under the guise of a hunt to find all the bodies. Once they had searched 1500 hectares of mountain for debris they finally turned their attention to the ravine.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ? The way the Search Parties were organised suggests to me that at first the Authorities thought they were dealing with a fairly straightforward Incident. But that straightforwardness disappeared after the final MUTILATED Bodies were found.
I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
A good narrative to explain all of this is that they attacked a natural object emitting in the visible and radar regions of the electro magnetic spectrum above Kholat Syakhl (Semyon's Plane1/2 perhaps) with SAM's (possibly low yield nuclear) in the belief that they had an incursion into their airspace. 1958 was a record year for sunspots and attendant geomagnetic energy. That gives you the signs of nitric acid and an area downwind of unusually warmed snow. Then you need a thorough investigation to determine what it was that you fired at. If it was nothing then this has to be proven with an extensive/exhaustive search of the area led by a senior staff officer and KGB personnel assisted with civilians. The use of civilians hints at division within the state and military over the point of the exercise with the KGB being isolated in considering the project necessary and the military reluctant to release manpower. So they used civilian manpower under the guise of a hunt to find all the bodies. Once they had searched 1500 hectares of mountain for debris they finally turned their attention to the ravine.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ? The way the Search Parties were organised suggests to me that at first the Authorities thought they were dealing with a fairly straightforward Incident. But that straightforwardness disappeared after the final MUTILATED Bodies were found.
Did they all arrive at the same time to search? The Civilians and the Military parties??
Did they all arrive at the same time to search? The Civilians and the Military parties??that's my understanding of - https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-36-39
You've got to be joking. lol1Your argument is not helped with the Eagle photo being extremely similar to reports from credible witnesses (including a meteorologist) of a "light surrounded by a mist".
Its FILM DAMAGE or contamination.
No, I dont joke about the Dyatlov Case.
Strange looking light and wheres the mist ?
Why wouldn't they fire at unknown objects, isn't that what the missiles are for? The Soviets were extremely irritated by U2 spy planes flying over their airspace out of reach of their SAMs (until 1960). It was the Cold War.I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
A good narrative to explain all of this is that they attacked a natural object emitting in the visible and radar regions of the electro magnetic spectrum above Kholat Syakhl (Semyon's Plane1/2 perhaps) with SAM's (possibly low yield nuclear) in the belief that they had an incursion into their airspace. 1958 was a record year for sunspots and attendant geomagnetic energy. That gives you the signs of nitric acid and an area downwind of unusually warmed snow. Then you need a thorough investigation to determine what it was that you fired at. If it was nothing then this has to be proven with an extensive/exhaustive search of the area led by a senior staff officer and KGB personnel assisted with civilians. The use of civilians hints at division within the state and military over the point of the exercise with the KGB being isolated in considering the project necessary and the military reluctant to release manpower. So they used civilian manpower under the guise of a hunt to find all the bodies. Once they had searched 1500 hectares of mountain for debris they finally turned their attention to the ravine.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ? The way the Search Parties were organised suggests to me that at first the Authorities thought they were dealing with a fairly straightforward Incident. But that straightforwardness disappeared after the final MUTILATED Bodies were found.
It took three months to discover the ravine four but they were sweeping the hills with mine detectors from day 1? A team of 7 sappers commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel? Nothing straightforward about this.
I don't think it was just a coverup, i think there were two parallel investigations, the normal civilian one using Ivanov and a military investigation seeking debris and all the bodies for a thorough analysis beyond that seen with the public autopsies. When Ivanov started getting close to the truth (fire orbs) he was ordered to stop investigating and front an accidental coverup to the relatives/public and evidence was confiscated.[The rank is too senior - Lieutenant Colonel to instruct a unit of 7 sappers in assisting a search for hikers led by civilians? Why not just a Captain? Why have a Colonel personally pulling three month old corpses out of the ground. These ranks are far too senior for such tasks. Unless there are secrets to be kept, to only be trusted to senior officers perhaps.
So what exactly are you getting close to ! ? I see nothing out of the ordinary in those various search parties. In fact its what one could maybe expect from something that was a genuine search effort and not pre planned. But after the finding of the final bodies things then did change quickly.
Sweeping the area with mine (metal) detectors hints at hunting for debris.
I also find it really suspicious that such senior personnel was present at the scene but almost no experts in relevant fields were called upon. It sheds bad light on the investigation as such a hints at the version that it was never an intention to solve the case properly but to stage a cover up.
A good narrative to explain all of this is that they attacked a natural object emitting in the visible and radar regions of the electro magnetic spectrum above Kholat Syakhl (Semyon's Plane1/2 perhaps) with SAM's (possibly low yield nuclear) in the belief that they had an incursion into their airspace. 1958 was a record year for sunspots and attendant geomagnetic energy. That gives you the signs of nitric acid and an area downwind of unusually warmed snow. Then you need a thorough investigation to determine what it was that you fired at. If it was nothing then this has to be proven with an extensive/exhaustive search of the area led by a senior staff officer and KGB personnel assisted with civilians. The use of civilians hints at division within the state and military over the point of the exercise with the KGB being isolated in considering the project necessary and the military reluctant to release manpower. So they used civilian manpower under the guise of a hunt to find all the bodies. Once they had searched 1500 hectares of mountain for debris they finally turned their attention to the ravine.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ? The way the Search Parties were organised suggests to me that at first the Authorities thought they were dealing with a fairly straightforward Incident. But that straightforwardness disappeared after the final MUTILATED Bodies were found.
I don't understand why you put so much trust in the so called authorities and why you keep referring to them as to unified solid bureau or institution. It simply does not work like that anywhere, not to mention the USSR... information sharing was virtually non existent between higher and upper ranks when it came to military - related activities or investigation. And even if that happened, it would have been a treason to reveal ANY sort of information beyond the official line.
You say that information sharing was virtually non existent between higher and lower ranks when it came to the military ! ? Good job you are wrong. The USSR had Nuclear capability from the time of Stalin. There had to be communication at all levels. Same for the other Nuclear capable Nations, and still is.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
post #42.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Thanks for the article, ordering a pilot without even high altitude equipment to try and ram the plane with a one shot attempt above it's operating ceiling indicates the mindset. Doesn't sound like they had great faith in the SA-75s! kewl1Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pilot of Russian fighter jet was instructed to ram the U2 if necessary. There is a Russian source to it: https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393 (https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393)
(understandable with Google translate for non Russian speakers)
I don't think it was strategically that remote. The Urals are significant to the mindset. It's my understanding that during WW2 one of Germany's key mistakes was not to develop a long range bomber that could attack Russia's industrial heartland east of the Urals (from forward airfields west of Moscow and in the Ukraine). So Russia's industrial war effort was unhindered in what became a mammoth war of attrition. It was a key mistake that on it's own could be said to have cost them the war in the East. After WW2 afaik Russia's industrial military machine continued to be based in this region. So any ingress into the airspace near Sverdlovsk had massive strategic implications with the Ural mountains being iconic. Get the Sverdlovsk region and you've got Russia perhaps. Also a full scale airborne attack by a substantially stronger country would perhaps choose a remote area in winter in order to build up forces as the region would not allow the defending country an easy response.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ?
Thanks for the article, ordering a pilot without even high altitude equipment to try and ram the plane with a one shot attempt above it's operating ceiling indicates the mindset. Doesn't sound like they had great faith in the SA-75s! kewl1Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pilot of Russian fighter jet was instructed to ram the U2 if necessary. There is a Russian source to it: https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393 (https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393)
(understandable with Google translate for non Russian speakers)
I like it, it's a good theory, what to do with the spent rockets that don't hit their target. If they have control surfaces that can be guided from the ground then could they not be remotely piloted in a glide to a safe crash zone? A glide path could possibly greatly exceed their range. Maybe in the Urals with a name like Dead Mountain?... Then send in some helicopters as garbage trucks. You'd need a tracked vehicle to drag the stuff to the pickup location. An Mil Mi-6 with a payload of 12 tonnes would do nicely. Then you find a tent with signs of nine people, oops. Three weeks later, you're notified of a rescue mission for overdue tourists. Better send along a team with metal detectors just in case the cleanup operation missed anything. It will be easy for them to stay ahead of the main search group probing the ground. Put a senior staff officer in charge of the sappers as he has to know what he's looking for.
Well that is probably why they fired more than one SAM... grin1 little overkill never killed nobody in Soviet union...
But going back to the topic, I would be interested what people working at the radar and air defence station have to say about the Ivanov's fire orbs or any unusual activity caught on radar around the date of the DPI. I have no idea if some sort of natural electrical phenomenon would be visible on radar used by Soviet Air defence in 1959. We know the SA75s were operational since 1957 and at least some of them in 1960 were fired upon spy planes with no hit... Also I would be interested in the procedure of recovery of such wreckages (exclusion zone? army deployment to a remote area by helicopter? ) According to the article, the friendly fire incident was kept secret for many years. Guess what would happen if that was a civilian hit...
including ramming by other aircraft
If they have control surfaces that can be guided from the ground then could they not be remotely piloted in a glide to a safe crash zone?
The U2 had a 'jammer' that jammed the communications between radar, launch site, and missile. The Russians were "spraying and praying". kewl1
The U2 had a 'jammer' that jammed the communications between radar, launch site, and missile. The Russians were "spraying and praying". kewl1
Sounds like more of a reason why a missile could hit something on the ground by mistake.
You say that information sharing was virtually non existent between higher and lower ranks when it came to the military ! ? Good job you are wrong. The USSR had Nuclear capability from the time of Stalin. There had to be communication at all levels. Same for the other Nuclear capable Nations, and still is.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Sharing information pretty much defeats the purpose of making something secret. All military or intelligence information was classified in the USSR and unauthorized sharing was punishable (art.75 of Criminal of the RSFSR, version 1960). That is exactly why local "authorities" such as investigators or prosecutors were never aware of any Military or KGB activity. Do you think that if there is a new weapon test (maybe an illegal one, chemical? spiked with uranium?), the Air force officers along with KGB men would first travel around Soviet Russia to brief all the low-ranked comrades? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
"Pre-digital technology helped, including Soviet policies that
monopolized the early digital technologies and kept them well away from
anyone who was not completely reliable. But technology was not
everything. The hermetic, suffocating character of Soviet secrecy can
hardly be explained without mentioning another constituent that was not
so much institutional as moral or ethical. Soviet leaders were entirely
unaffected by any sense of obligation to account in public for the
decisions they made or their outcomes. On the contrary, the greatest
obligation that they felt was to each other, expressed in a code of silence
that they called “conspirativeness.”
The concept of conspirativeness was unknown to Hutchings (1987),
and it was a surprise to Fitzpatrick (1990). But the code was as old as the
Bolshevik Revolution. It had its origins in the pre-revolutionary
underground. When the Bolsheviks came to power, conspirativeness
became an organizing principle of the new Soviet state, being formalized
in the 1920s, at the beginning of Stalin’s tenure as party general secretary
4
(Kurenkov 2015; also Istochnik 1993; Khlevniuk et al. 1995: 74-77; on
“conspirativity” in the Romanian Securitate, see Verdery 2014: 43-50).
Under conspirativeness, no one had a right to know anything at all.
There was only need-to-know, granted by higher to lower authority and
only ever on a discretionary and temporary basis. Table 1 contrasts the
basic codes of Soviet and American government secrecy since World War
II. As the table suggests, right-to-know versus need-to-know was a
defining conflict of the Cold War (cf Hutchings 1987: 224-226). " p.3-4
"The capacity of the Soviet state to prevent abuse of office was limited
by the fact that the most important stage of initial investigation was itself
secret. This was the stage of party investigation, which provided the first
filter in the processing of cases of wrong doing. Party investigation was a
party secret, not a state secret, but the concept of conspirativeness that
applied was identical. " p.14
source: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2017/twerp_1134_harrison.pdf
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
You say that information sharing was virtually non existent between higher and lower ranks when it came to the military ! ? Good job you are wrong. The USSR had Nuclear capability from the time of Stalin. There had to be communication at all levels. Same for the other Nuclear capable Nations, and still is.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Sharing information pretty much defeats the purpose of making something secret. All military or intelligence information was classified in the USSR and unauthorized sharing was punishable (art.75 of Criminal of the RSFSR, version 1960). That is exactly why local "authorities" such as investigators or prosecutors were never aware of any Military or KGB activity. Do you think that if there is a new weapon test (maybe an illegal one, chemical? spiked with uranium?), the Air force officers along with KGB men would first travel around Soviet Russia to brief all the low-ranked comrades? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
"Pre-digital technology helped, including Soviet policies that
monopolized the early digital technologies and kept them well away from
anyone who was not completely reliable. But technology was not
everything. The hermetic, suffocating character of Soviet secrecy can
hardly be explained without mentioning another constituent that was not
so much institutional as moral or ethical. Soviet leaders were entirely
unaffected by any sense of obligation to account in public for the
decisions they made or their outcomes. On the contrary, the greatest
obligation that they felt was to each other, expressed in a code of silence
that they called “conspirativeness.”
The concept of conspirativeness was unknown to Hutchings (1987),
and it was a surprise to Fitzpatrick (1990). But the code was as old as the
Bolshevik Revolution. It had its origins in the pre-revolutionary
underground. When the Bolsheviks came to power, conspirativeness
became an organizing principle of the new Soviet state, being formalized
in the 1920s, at the beginning of Stalin’s tenure as party general secretary
4
(Kurenkov 2015; also Istochnik 1993; Khlevniuk et al. 1995: 74-77; on
“conspirativity” in the Romanian Securitate, see Verdery 2014: 43-50).
Under conspirativeness, no one had a right to know anything at all.
There was only need-to-know, granted by higher to lower authority and
only ever on a discretionary and temporary basis. Table 1 contrasts the
basic codes of Soviet and American government secrecy since World War
II. As the table suggests, right-to-know versus need-to-know was a
defining conflict of the Cold War (cf Hutchings 1987: 224-226). " p.3-4
"The capacity of the Soviet state to prevent abuse of office was limited
by the fact that the most important stage of initial investigation was itself
secret. This was the stage of party investigation, which provided the first
filter in the processing of cases of wrong doing. Party investigation was a
party secret, not a state secret, but the concept of conspirativeness that
applied was identical. " p.14
source: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2017/twerp_1134_harrison.pdf
Ok so you claim that there was very little information sharing between the higher and lower ranks of the Soviet Military. And I claim that there was plenty of information sharing. You present a paper that someone at a University has put together to prove what ! ? Do you really believe that there was no information sharing between all ranks of the Soviet Military during the so called Cold War, when both the USSR and the USA where just a BUTTON PRESS away from annihilating one another ! ? There does not need to be SECRETS between the various Military Branches. Its very important that they each know what the other is doing etc etc. You keep SECRETS from the ENEMY. And the ENEMY was the USA and unfortunately, STILL IS.
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pilot of Russian fighter jet was instructed to ram the U2 if necessary. There is a Russian source to it: https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393
(understandable with Google translate for non Russian speakers)
Thanks for the article, ordering a pilot without even high altitude equipment to try and ram the plane with a one shot attempt above it's operating ceiling indicates the mindset. Doesn't sound like they had great faith in the SA-75s! kewl1Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pilot of Russian fighter jet was instructed to ram the U2 if necessary. There is a Russian source to it: https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393 (https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393)
(understandable with Google translate for non Russian speakers)
I don't think it was strategically that remote. The Urals are significant to the mindset. It's my understanding that during WW2 one of Germany's key mistakes was not to develop a long range bomber that could attack Russia's industrial heartland east of the Urals (from forward airfields west of Moscow and in the Ukraine). So Russia's industrial war effort was unhindered in what became a mammoth war of attrition. It was a key mistake that on it's own could be said to have cost them the war in the East. After WW2 afaik Russia's industrial military machine continued to be based in this region. So any ingress into the airspace near Sverdlovsk had massive strategic implications with the Ural mountains being iconic. Get the Sverdlovsk region and you've got Russia perhaps. Also a full scale airborne attack by a substantially stronger country would perhaps choose a remote area in winter in order to build up forces as the region would not allow the defending country an easy response.
I find it very hard to believe that the Soviets would fire off SAM'S at unknown objects over a fairly remote area ! ?
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pilot of Russian fighter jet was instructed to ram the U2 if necessary. There is a Russian source to it: https://vpk-news.ru/articles/6393
(understandable with Google translate for non Russian speakers)
Bit of a difference between firing off Missiles at unknown flying objects and asking a Warplane to ram another Warplane if need be ! ?
I like it, it's a good theory, what to do with the spent rockets that don't hit their target. If they have control surfaces that can be guided from the ground then could they not be remotely piloted in a glide to a safe crash zone? A glide path could possibly greatly exceed their range. Maybe in the Urals with a name like Dead Mountain?... Then send in some helicopters as garbage trucks. You'd need a tracked vehicle to drag the stuff to the pickup location. An Mil Mi-6 with a payload of 12 tonnes would do nicely. Then you find a tent with signs of nine people, oops. Three weeks later, you're notified of a rescue mission for overdue tourists. Better send along a team with metal detectors just in case the cleanup operation missed anything. It will be easy for them to stay ahead of the main search group probing the ground. Put a senior staff officer in charge of the sappers as he has to know what he's looking for.
Well that is probably why they fired more than one SAM... grin1 little overkill never killed nobody in Soviet union...
But going back to the topic, I would be interested what people working at the radar and air defence station have to say about the Ivanov's fire orbs or any unusual activity caught on radar around the date of the DPI. I have no idea if some sort of natural electrical phenomenon would be visible on radar used by Soviet Air defence in 1959. We know the SA75s were operational since 1957 and at least some of them in 1960 were fired upon spy planes with no hit... Also I would be interested in the procedure of recovery of such wreckages (exclusion zone? army deployment to a remote area by helicopter? ) According to the article, the friendly fire incident was kept secret for many years. Guess what would happen if that was a civilian hit...
It's a good fit!
Probably the generals/air marshals were under strict standing orders to fire at all perceived threats. Any less would be treason.
Well firing at unknown objects means you may be firing at your own people. Where does it state that they were sweeping the hills from day 1 ! ?
When the most famous shotdown in the USSR happened - shooting down the USAF U-2 in 1960 near Sverdlovsk!!!, 14 SAM were fired, one hit U-2 plane, one was a friendly fire hit of the soviet interceptor aircraft and the remaining dozen crashed god knows where. It was not the the first breach of the Soviet airspace by USAF and thus not the first 14 SAMs fired. The order of battle at that time was basically to bring down USAF aircraft by all means including ramming by other aircraft. BTW remember the KAL007? Soviet military has a bad history of firing at own people or civilians so ask them why they fired SAMs at unknown objects.
Perceived Threats ! ? Dosnt mean that there was or is a Policy off shooting off Missiles at unknown flying objects.
Works for me, what aspects are you unhappy about?I like it, it's a good theory, what to do with the spent rockets that don't hit their target. If they have control surfaces that can be guided from the ground then could they not be remotely piloted in a glide to a safe crash zone? A glide path could possibly greatly exceed their range. Maybe in the Urals with a name like Dead Mountain?... Then send in some helicopters as garbage trucks. You'd need a tracked vehicle to drag the stuff to the pickup location. An Mil Mi-6 with a payload of 12 tonnes would do nicely. Then you find a tent with signs of nine people, oops. Three weeks later, you're notified of a rescue mission for overdue tourists. Better send along a team with metal detectors just in case the cleanup operation missed anything. It will be easy for them to stay ahead of the main search group probing the ground. Put a senior staff officer in charge of the sappers as he has to know what he's looking for.
Well that is probably why they fired more than one SAM... grin1 little overkill never killed nobody in Soviet union...
But going back to the topic, I would be interested what people working at the radar and air defence station have to say about the Ivanov's fire orbs or any unusual activity caught on radar around the date of the DPI. I have no idea if some sort of natural electrical phenomenon would be visible on radar used by Soviet Air defence in 1959. We know the SA75s were operational since 1957 and at least some of them in 1960 were fired upon spy planes with no hit... Also I would be interested in the procedure of recovery of such wreckages (exclusion zone? army deployment to a remote area by helicopter? ) According to the article, the friendly fire incident was kept secret for many years. Guess what would happen if that was a civilian hit...
It's a good fit!
Good Fit ! ? It doesnt fit much of what actually happened to the Dyatlov Group. As many of us have discussed in other parts of this Forum.
The U2 had a 'jammer' that jammed the communications between radar, launch site, and missile. The Russians were "spraying and praying". kewl1
Sounds like more of a reason why a missile could hit something on the ground by mistake.
Yup, and interception via another aircraft was..... futile. These things technically go into OUTERSPACE!
Take a ride in a U2 which is STILL currently in operation!
PLEASE GO TO THE 7:45 MARK AND FULL SCREEN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww
GO TO 3:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1bzsfE6io