Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement

Question on military involvement

<< < (2/5) > >>

Manti:

--- Quote from: amashilu on June 03, 2022, 04:46:43 PM ---First, I admit I don't know anything about the KGB or the Russian military. But I've read in many places that the Big Question of why the hikers left their tent is the possibility that they were ordered out of their tent at gunpoint by military. If this were true, why didn't the military just shoot them? None of the autopsies mention gunshot wounds. Why would the military go to such lengths to order them out of the tent, make them take their boots off, bash their heads in, or to crush their chests with their boots? Why not just shoot them?

--- End quote ---

Military involvement is just someone's speculation.


Personally I don't think the military would harm them in any way, they had no reason to. But if they did, they would also cover it up properly and not leave bodies lying around to be found.

Jean Daniel Reuss:


--- Quote from: amashilu on June 03, 2022, 04:46:43 PM ---..............................................................
 Why not just shoot them?

--- End quote ---

              The answer is extremely simple: it is because the attackers did not had a gun (firearm).

Here are some thoughts to highlight some of the disadvantages of firearms, which might explain why the attackers did not have firearms.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Obviously, Kolgomorova, Slobodin, Doroshenko, Dyatlov, Krivonischenko rushed at the attacker who was in front of them, and thus were able to strike with all their strength with their fists, for a (too) short time,

So it would have been psychologically impossible for the attacker, if he had held a loaded gun, not to use his weapon.

https://dyatlovpass.com/injuries?filter_page=2&rbid=18461


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°It must be remembered that the attack began in complete darkness, on slippery, sloping snowy ground.
Moreover, there was probably a medium to strong wind, which necessitates shouting loudly to hope that a command or threatening obligation will be understood. (As for the temperature, it does not matter at the beginning).

In such conditions the effectiveness of verbal threats alone, i.e. without firing warning shots, which would have been visible for example in the top of the tent, seems to me almost impossible.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°If the attacker with a firearm was too far away, he might miss one of his 9 targets in the dark.

If the attacker was too close, he risked being disarmed. he risked being disarmed by triggering a coordinated counter attack from all the 9 hikers.

We had a recent example of this, albeit exceptional, but in good lighting conditions, with the attacker about 10 metres away and using a AKM, a modern repeating weapon :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

On 21 August 2015, the attacker El Khazzani on a Thalys train :

................... and seeing the shirtless [El Khazzani] with an assault rifle, Skarlatos shouted out to his friends "Get him!". Stone moved first, running up the aisle, straight at the gun-wielding El Khazzani and putting him into a chokehold. El Khazzani dropped the carbine, but repeatedly cut Stone in the hand, head, and neck with the utility knife; Stone's thumb was nearly severed. Skarlatos seized the jammed rifle off the floor and began "muzzle-thumping" El Khazzani about the head, while Stone continued his choke-hold. El Khazzani fell unconscious......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack

So carrying a gun with ammunition: heavy, expensive, very difficult to justify legally, 
without ever making the threat clear by visible warning shots or even by actually shooting one of the hikers in the leg, seems absurd.



°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Look at the opinion, which also supports the non-use of a firearm by the attackers, from Vietnamka, who is Russian.
Vietnamka: Murdered > Murder Indead, January 24, 2019, 07:40:55 AM ---> Reply #61
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=110.msg3058#msg3058
.............................
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot.
......................
the victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.
.........................

                       the simplest answer is - attackers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons.

If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters ........................
But the blows were very effective.......


°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°The surroundings of Vizhay, near the Ivdellag were particularly watched in 1959, (i.e. in the period of Krushchev's thaw) by the government authorities. So there were frequent unannounced police checks.

When carrying a weapon: either you were known and carefully licensed,
 or you took a huge risk (of being imprisoned for illegal transport of a firearm).

Charles:
Hello Jean-Daniel,


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---So carrying a gun with ammunition: heavy, expensive, very difficult to justify legally, without ever making the threat clear by visible warning shots or even by actually shooting one of the hikers in the leg, seems absurd.

When carrying a weapon: either you were known and carefully licensed, or you took a huge risk (of being imprisoned for illegal transport of a firearm).
--- End quote ---

According to the diaries there was a Mansi hunter just beyond the Dyatlov's hikers and Blinov's group had equipment for hunting. And somewhere in the archive there is a testimony of a truck driver who traded a gun for a dog with a Mansi guy... The only other people known to be in the area at the same time all carried firearms and it was easy to get a gun in the region... So, it is not possible to say that carrying firearms was impossible or difficult. Because actually Dyatlov's hikers were the only ones not to carry firearms... they were not the rule, in the present case, but the exception.

If you want to attack a group of nine in the open of the Taiga, it is absurd not to carry firearms, even though you rely on more discret way to kill at the last moment. Your point would be valid if the hikers were killed in Moscow, but not in the Urals taiga.

Charles:
Hello Jean-Daniel,


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---It must be remembered that the attack began in complete darkness
--- End quote ---

The attack could have happened in the morning or in the evening as the two hikers with their shoes and Slobodin with only one shoe on and his jacket hung at the entry can let us imagine. There is no certainty about the time of the attack.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot.
......................
the victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.
.........................
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---without ever making the threat clear by visible warning shots or even by actually shooting one of the hikers in the leg, seems absurd.
--- End quote ---

There is nothing that prevents us to make the hypothesis of shots fired in the air.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---So it would have been psychologically impossible for the attacker, if he had held a loaded gun, not to use his weapon.
--- End quote ---

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. And the hikers were tourists, intellectuals, with beautiful and soft hands, working in warm libraries and engineering companies... exhausted after a few days of trekking.

And maybe the burns on the bodies at the cedar were designed just to increase the range of "natural" trauma: fractures, cold, fire... anything but a bullet and a knife... And it was brilliant as the police was forced to conclude with the "unknown compelling force". (EDIT: this passage, I retract. No need to increase other wounds, the attackers just didn't have to mind at anything as long as they avoided bullet holes and knife wounds.)

And by the way, this points in direction of local and specially the Mansi who were certainly smart enough to understand that if the police found bullet wounds, their homes would be searched and their rifles confiscated... Locals, either Mansi or loggers, would have been careful not to kill with the rifles they used to threaten and control the hikers while they killed them one by one without leaving obvious wounds.

And I do not make here a circular reasoning. Because if we accept the hypothesis of murder, then we have also to accept that the murder was not "by chance", that is was planned and that the murderers didn't escape the police by chance. They did not use their guns because  they wanted to fool the police and they did fool the police... as our discussions decades later testify...

Charles

Charles:
Hello Jean-Daniel


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 06, 2022, 09:23:07 AM ---So carrying a gun with ammunition: heavy, expensive, very difficult to justify legally

When carrying a weapon: either you were known and carefully licensed, or you took a huge risk (of being imprisoned for illegal transport of a firearm).
--- End quote ---

Sorry to insist, but this one is really funny...

Carrying firearms was so easy and common in the Urals, even dogs had been seen carrying rifles:





I bet that dog had no license...

Amicalement

Charles

PS: And maybe Blinov's group had "things for hunting" not only for hunting, but also for security. As when sailing for pleasure in some regions of the globe (mainly South Asia and Indonesia), Westerners often take a gun on their boat, just in case of encounter with locals having bad intentions.



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

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