Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement

Bombs spiked with Sr-90

<< < (2/3) > >>

gypsy:

--- Quote from: Star man on March 04, 2019, 08:50:28 AM ---From what I have read it looks more and more likely that it was military and that there was some nuclear involvement.

Spiked device
Dirty device
Low yield device

Without going there and taking the necessary samples to analyse using modern techniques what can be concluded?

Regards
Star man

--- End quote ---

Could have been anything banned by international treaties, including chemical, biological weapons or what was already mentioned above. Chemical or biological weapons don't necessarily require a a strong explosion, the desired effect is not to destroy infrastructure or buildings, enemy weapons etc. All of that was possible to rule in or out by chemical analyses if they were conducted at proper time.No sure what traces would have remained after 60 years.

Without taking actual samples, it would be interesting to know who exactly was in charge of the confiscation of evidence, imposing the no-go zone in the area, what inventory is missing from the scene, who Ivanov spoke to in Moscow etc. It could tell us what departments or personnel was interested in case and why.

Star man:

--- Quote from: gypsy on March 05, 2019, 06:57:09 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 04, 2019, 08:50:28 AM ---From what I have read it looks more and more likely that it was military and that there was some nuclear involvement.

Spiked device
Dirty device
Low yield device

Without going there and taking the necessary samples to analyse using modern techniques what can be concluded?

Regards
Star man

--- End quote ---

Could have been anything banned by international treaties, including chemical, biological weapons or what was already mentioned above. Chemical or biological weapons don't necessarily require a a strong explosion, the desired effect is not to destroy infrastructure or buildings, enemy weapons etc. All of that was possible to rule in or out by chemical analyses if they were conducted at proper time.No sure what traces would have remained after 60 years.

Without taking actual samples, it would be interesting to know who exactly was in charge of the confiscation of evidence, imposing the no-go zone in the area, what inventory is missing from the scene, who Ivanov spoke to in Moscow etc. It could tell us what departments or personnel was interested in case and why.

--- End quote ---

Sounds like you are thinking along the same lines as myself. I agree.  There may be some further digging to do into where the key decisions were made.

sarapuk:
It seems that more than one Thermobaric Bomb would have been needed to cause the events at the Site or Sites of the Dyatlov Groups demise. And such weapons cause catastrophic injuries to humans, although its possible that humans on the fringe of a blast could suffer internal injuries without showing external signs. But there are other factors at play and we would expect to see much damage to the Tent and Clothing and Trees, etc. And the USSR didnt start developing such Weapons until the 1960's.

Ryan:

--- Quote from: gypsy on March 05, 2019, 06:57:09 AM ---Could have been anything banned by international treaties, including chemical, biological weapons or what was already mentioned above. Chemical or biological weapons don't necessarily require a a strong explosion, the desired effect is not to destroy infrastructure or buildings, enemy weapons etc. All of that was possible to rule in or out by chemical analyses if they were conducted at proper time.No sure what traces would have remained after 60 years.

Without taking actual samples, it would be interesting to know who exactly was in charge of the confiscation of evidence, imposing the no-go zone in the area, what inventory is missing from the scene, who Ivanov spoke to in Moscow etc. It could tell us what departments or personnel was interested in case and why.

--- End quote ---

If one is testing a chemical or biological dispersal weapon, it would be reasonable to spike it with Sr-90 and detonate it in an uninhabited area as a way to quantify the dispersal pattern. This could be done with either inert simulants or with the actual chemical or biological agent.

Hearing an airplane or an incoming missile or shell could easily draw some of the hikers from their tent, get people to grab their cameras, start putting on a boot, etc. An actual device detonating nearby could then induce panic such that they cut their way out and leave the area, looking for shelter.

I'm not terribly attached to the idea that it has to be a thermobaric bomb. My thoughts in that direction were that the four hikers in the ravine had various internal injuries without external damage, so I was wondering if a thermobaric bomb could produce overpressure that could do it. Are there other plausible explanations for these injuries? I thought there was reason to think they couldn't be caused post-mortem, say, by being crushed by the weight of snow in the ravine.

Still, the thing I don't like about this is that Sr-90 implies the military is going to come back and survey. If they did, and found the hikers' bodies, I think it likely that they'd make the bodies and the tent disappear.

Star man:

--- Quote from: Ryan on March 07, 2019, 09:24:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: gypsy on March 05, 2019, 06:57:09 AM ---Could have been anything banned by international treaties, including chemical, biological weapons or what was already mentioned above. Chemical or biological weapons don't necessarily require a a strong explosion, the desired effect is not to destroy infrastructure or buildings, enemy weapons etc. All of that was possible to rule in or out by chemical analyses if they were conducted at proper time.No sure what traces would have remained after 60 years.

Without taking actual samples, it would be interesting to know who exactly was in charge of the confiscation of evidence, imposing the no-go zone in the area, what inventory is missing from the scene, who Ivanov spoke to in Moscow etc. It could tell us what departments or personnel was interested in case and why.

--- End quote ---

If one is testing a chemical or biological dispersal weapon, it would be reasonable to spike it with Sr-90 and detonate it in an uninhabited area as a way to quantify the dispersal pattern. This could be done with either inert simulants or with the actual chemical or biological agent.

Hearing an airplane or an incoming missile or shell could easily draw some of the hikers from their tent, get people to grab their cameras, start putting on a boot, etc. An actual device detonating nearby could then induce panic such that they cut their way out and leave the area, looking for shelter.

I'm not terribly attached to the idea that it has to be a thermobaric bomb. My thoughts in that direction were that the four hikers in the ravine had various internal injuries without external damage, so I was wondering if a thermobaric bomb could produce overpressure that could do it. Are there other plausible explanations for these injuries? I thought there was reason to think they couldn't be caused post-mortem, say, by being crushed by the weight of snow in the ravine.

Still, the thing I don't like about this is that Sr-90 implies the military is going to come back and survey. If they did, and found the hikers' bodies, I think it likely that they'd make the bodies and the tent disappear.

--- End quote ---

There are other more fitting reasons that cause the injuries.  They are more consistent with a fall than anything else. I did a detailed bio mechanical analysis in the low yield nuke thread.  This fits other people‚Äôs conclusions.

A thermobaric device is likely to have resulted in more devastating injuries as well as obvious damage to the surroundings.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

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