Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement

Question on military involvement

<< < (5/5)

Jean Daniel Reuss:


--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on June 22, 2022, 04:56:04 AM ---               Reply #15
.................................
In my opinion it is most likely that the attackers were professional, trained killers on a mission to eradicate what was a potential threat to state security - if the students had observed something there in the Urals they were not supposed to know about. Their possible divulging state secrets to a friend, family member or spouse was a risk that could not be taken.

Trained special forces personnel do not react like "normal" people. They are able to keep calm when attacked, and the students would have no chance with their fists in close combat against professional killers.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on June 22, 2022, 04:48:39 AM ---               Reply #16

--- Quote from: Charles on June 07, 2022, 01:13:43 AM ---Because leaving bullet wounds or knife wounds make a totally different case. The condition of the success was not only not to leave cartridges cases behind but not to leave bullet wounds at all.
Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. The attackers could fail many things but they had to kill all the hikers and to leave no bullet and knife wounds. It is not difficult to follow only two instructions. The attackers did not have to complete a list of 10 or 20 obligations, there were only two........

--- End quote ---

It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered.
That is the reason why the attackers did not use firearms for the killing: .... was to make the whole operation look like an accident......

--- End quote ---

--->  Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. 

--->    It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered. 


Because you think that Russian investigators are fools and do not know that it is easy to commit murders without using guns or knives. !!!

Guns can be used to carry out massacres very quickly. This is undeniable. But where does this insane obsession with the necessity of guns come from ?

For trained killers, a few well adapted birch wood blunt objects are more than enough.
Besides, a good big stick is perhaps more reliable (for those who know how to use it) in close night combat than a shotgun with a (too) long barrel (which is more adapted to kill an elk at 50 meters).

If it was a condition of success not to use firearms, is it not simpler not to carry them at all?

---> ...........Was to make the whole operation look like an accident.

Since the attackers did not bother - or did not want - to do any staging, the operation did not look like an accident to objective people like Vladimir Askinadzi:

I do not know who or why were they murdered. But this seems to me the only explanation of their death.

Only orders came from the Kremlin and the ridiculous conclusion was imposed.
(a spontaneous force that tourists were unable to overcome) .



°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
I cannot answer with certainty the questions "WHY?" and "WHO?" but there is one thing that I am certain of:

                        This is not the KGB.

Even assuming that the hikers could have seen - which is absurd - something that was a potential threat to state security .

It is absurd because as far as we can tell in 1959, the KGB personnel were quite competent and well trained and there were few smokers in its ranks.

And one of the tasks of the KGB was to dismantle and combat associations and organisations hostile to the Soviet regime in Moscow led by Khrushchev.

 But before fighting and dismantling, one must first identify the enemy, which is often the most difficult task for the internal security services.

Dyatlov's group had left Sverdlovsk on 23 January with the agreement and encouragement of the Soviet authorities (CPSU, Route Commission, UPI leadership.........
 
And on 1 February the KGB had the mission to eliminate the 9 hikers immediately on the spot in an unusual way ?

How could the group have changed its status in 8 days, without having undergone mysterious influences?
 
   Dyatlov's group was only small and unimportant pawns (except in a more complicated Rakitin-like scenario).

Dubinina could not have been the powerful conspiratorial mastermind capable of worrying Khrushchev.

There would necessarily have been much more powerful and dangerous accomplices or sponsors for the Khrushchev regime that the KGB had to identify. (Polish officers wanting to avenge Katyn, former Stalinist NKVD officers demonstrating against the Thaw, hostile Chechens or Lithuanians...etc.?)

The KGB would never have committed the monstrous fault of killing the hikers without having first interrogated them at length in premises adapted to intensive interrogation.

  If it had killed the hikers before having properly interrogated them, the KGB would have definitely lost any possibility of tracing the real perpetrators or initiators of what could have been a threat to the security of the state.                                                                                                                                                 

                               

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on August 07, 2022, 03:16:15 PM ---

--->  Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. 

--->    It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered. 


Because you think that Russian investigators are fools and do not know that it is easy to commit murders without using guns or knives. !!!

Guns can be used to carry out massacres very quickly. This is undeniable. But where does this insane obsession with the necessity of guns come from ?

For trained killers, a few well adapted birch wood blunt objects are more than enough.
Besides, a good big stick is perhaps more reliable (for those who know how to use it) in close night combat than a shotgun with a (too) long barrel (which is more adapted to kill an elk at 50 meters).

If it was a condition of success not to use firearms, is it not simpler not to carry them at all?

---> ...........Was to make the whole operation look like an accident.

Since the attackers did not bother - or did not want - to do any staging, the operation did not look like an accident to objective people like Vladimir Askinadzi:

I do not know who or why were they murdered. But this seems to me the only explanation of their death.

Only orders came from the Kremlin and the ridiculous conclusion was imposed.
(a spontaneous force that tourists were unable to overcome) .



°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
I cannot answer with certainty the questions "WHY?" and "WHO?" but there is one thing that I am certain of:

                        This is not the KGB.

Even assuming that the hikers could have seen - which is absurd - something that was a potential threat to state security .

It is absurd because as far as we can tell in 1959, the KGB personnel were quite competent and well trained and there were few smokers in its ranks.

And one of the tasks of the KGB was to dismantle and combat associations and organisations hostile to the Soviet regime in Moscow led by Khrushchev.

 But before fighting and dismantling, one must first identify the enemy, which is often the most difficult task for the internal security services.

Dyatlov's group had left Sverdlovsk on 23 January with the agreement and encouragement of the Soviet authorities (CPSU, Route Commission, UPI leadership.........
 
And on 1 February the KGB had the mission to eliminate the 9 hikers immediately on the spot in an unusual way ?

How could the group have changed its status in 8 days, without having undergone mysterious influences?
 
   Dyatlov's group was only small and unimportant pawns (except in a more complicated Rakitin-like scenario).

Dubinina could not have been the powerful conspiratorial mastermind capable of worrying Khrushchev.

There would necessarily have been much more powerful and dangerous accomplices or sponsors for the Khrushchev regime that the KGB had to identify. (Polish officers wanting to avenge Katyn, former Stalinist NKVD officers demonstrating against the Thaw, hostile Chechens or Lithuanians...etc.?)

The KGB would never have committed the monstrous fault of killing the hikers without having first interrogated them at length in premises adapted to intensive interrogation.

  If it had killed the hikers before having properly interrogated them, the KGB would have definitely lost any possibility of tracing the real perpetrators or initiators of what could have been a threat to the security of the state.                                                                                                                                                                               

--- End quote ---


Dear Jean Daniel Reuss:

This is the one, and truly only, point where I disagree with you.

An explanation:

- The KGB did not have to interrogate any of the students. They were by all accounts loyal Soviet citizens. There were certainly no traitors or spies among them. If my suspicion that the KGB was indeed given the order to kill the nine students is correct, it was because the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know about. Granted that this was the situation, what the students observed was of such a nature that it would be a threat to state security and possibly international relations if one of the students might later tell anyone what they had observed. Thus, the very observation by the students was the dangerous factor. For these reasons, the KGB would not get any information if they had interrogated the students - they already know the decisive factor: The students had observed what they should not have observed.

- If I am correct, the group simply became a potential threat to state security by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The students had no anti-state intentions, they were not guilty of any crime - but, crucially they knew a dangerous secret.

- It was never unusual for the KGB to kill people in a way designed to make it look like an accident. The KGB is probably the most cruelly sophisticated, intelligent and efficient intelligence agency known to Man. Numerous "accidents," "suicides" and "natural deaths" were in fact the skilled work of the KGB. Remember, if there had not been a sudden rise in temperature between the first and second days of February 1959 the mission would have been perfect - because the students would have frozen to death as was planned.

Игорь Б.:
Хорошо, что у убийц не было вертолёта.
В 30 километрах от перевала на восток расположены обширные болота. Можно было бы погрузить трупы, вещи в вертолёт и перевезти их на одно из болот. Тогда группа Дятлова до сих пор бы числилась пропавшей без вести.

Jean Daniel Reuss:


--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 02, 2022, 02:31:28 AM ---                     Reply #21
This is the one, and truly only, point where I disagree with you.
...................................
............
--- End quote ---

That' s right. Maybe not the only one. But certainly the most important.



--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 02, 2022, 02:31:28 AM ---                     Reply #21
..................................................
 it was because the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know about. Granted that this was the situation, what the students observed was of such a nature that it would be a threat to state security and possibly international relations if one of the students might later tell anyone what they had observed.
.................................
--- End quote ---


The "something" that the hikers would have witnessed would therefore be rather a kind of political project in preparation or in execution that would tip the international order in another direction.

Now in 2022, I confess I still have no idea about this important secret they were not supposed to know.
But I am not competent in USSR history

All the theories I can think of are incompatible with the history we can (very incompletely know it is true) in 2022.

What do you think about this implausible example of a secret that the hikers were not supposed to know.

Khrushchev, who organised the KGB to support him and also to fight against his opponents (notably the former NKVD), was in reality a traitor with a hidden agenda.

With his accomplice Dwight Eisenhower, he wanted to dismantle his own country, the USSR, to put it under the authority of the USA.....



--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 02, 2022, 02:31:28 AM ---                     Reply #21
....................................................
 the group simply became a potential threat to state security...........they knew a dangerous secret.
...................................
..........
--- End quote ---

First of all, do you agree with the timeline summarised by Teddy?

https://dyatlovpass.com/?flp=1#timeline

23 January = departure from Sverdlovsk by train.
1 February around 5 PM = pitching the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl or for other theories under the cedar tree.


Why ?, how (in what way ? in what form ?) did the hikers inherit this dangerous secret. And when ?
(Because they were chatting a lot with each other, they didn't have much free time left).

•  Before 28 January, when there were still witnesses ?

•  After 28 January, in the Auspiya valley ?

But their progress was very slow and not very discreet.
If Mansis were watching them they must have been laughing.
 4 days to go from North-2 to the pass: they are not ski hikers but snails!

The hikers could have noticed signs of illegal gold mining: this is very possible. But this could not constitute   

a threat to state security and possibly international relations.
•  You may have other ideas or suspicions about encounters with foreigners or conspirators on the Kholat Syakhl slope on 1 February.
If so, please give us at least some leads to follow.
 


--- Quote from: Per Inge Oestmoen on September 02, 2022, 02:31:28 AM ---                     Reply #21
...............
if there had not been a sudden rise in temperature between the first and second days of February 1959 the mission would have been perfect
...........
--- End quote ---

• You contradict yourself:

• The KGB (as well as the troika of my TOK theory) were not stupid. In 1959, they knew that it was impossible to predict the weather with absolute certainty in the Urals in February.

 Their plan left no room for chance and was designed to succeed regardless of the weather.
No hiker was to survive, whether it was :
 -5° C, with no wind,
 -50° C, in the storm.

• You can imagine the answer of a KGB killer to his superior: I admit that there was a flaw in the execution, but I could not foresee that the temperature would rise.
I suppose he would be immediately kicked out for being mentally retarded.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version