Theories Discussion > Murdered
Army Tactician - Definitely Ambush, potential events
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 02:53:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 18, 2021, 12:09:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 AM ---Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:
Likely sequence:
1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on.
2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point.
3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.
4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.
5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.
6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.
7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.
8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.
Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers
--- End quote ---
Rubbish
--- End quote ---
Your take - UFO?
--- End quote ---
I dont have a take. UFO's have been observed in the area before during and after the Incident.
armyeng:
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 19, 2021, 12:57:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 02:53:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 18, 2021, 12:09:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 AM ---Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:
Likely sequence:
1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on.
2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point.
3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.
4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.
5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.
6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.
7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.
8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.
Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers
--- End quote ---
Rubbish
--- End quote ---
Your take - UFO?
--- End quote ---
I dont have a take. UFO's have been observed in the area before during and after the Incident.
Lol
--- End quote ---
Jacques-Emile:
Lights from the sky - specifically, helicopter lights. "Get out and form a line. Walk to the trees." What is better - you want yeti with wings?
Saltyseadog:
yes there were rockets on 1/2 - 2/2.
These are officially unrecorded but mention is first made in radiograms of an observed UFO on morning of 1/2.
Then the Shumkov group reported the light when they were on Chistop. Either 1/2 or 2/2.
Then Dubinin and Krivonischenko in their statements also mention these although heard 3rd hand. Coincidence? I don't think so.
But did it crash, also I don't think so, it was just a meteorological rocket launched from Baikonur at the time.
I have investigated this and as in radiograms it is mentioned as a meteorological rocket and these were low altitude and the Soviet Union launched 25 in 1959 of which 13 were successful launches and 12 failed. So you see the Soviets were launching regular monthly or bi monthly meteorological rockets at this time.
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 02:53:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 18, 2021, 12:09:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: armyeng on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 AM ---Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:
Likely sequence:
1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on.
2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point.
3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.
4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.
5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.
6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.
7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.
8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.
Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers
--- End quote ---
Rubbish
--- End quote ---
Your take - UFO?
--- End quote ---
I have no takes. And I dont talk rubbish.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version