Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement

Question on military involvement

(1/5) > >>

amashilu:
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?

Jean Daniel Reuss:


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

--- End quote ---

Because it was neither the KGB, nor the army, nor any other police of the USSR government.

On the contrary, the DPI was a serious defeat of the KGB, which proved its incompetency by being unable to protect the 9 hikers.

Although Dyatlov's group represented the elite of the Soviet youth and, in a way, the future of the USSR in 1959 under Krushchev's government ....

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
In a nutshell, here are some features of my explanation of the DPI (TOKEB theory).

    • The 9 hikers were attacked by surprise by a small number of contract killers, probably only 3.

    • The emergency exit from the tent can easily be explained by the introduction of a tear gas grenade or suffocating gas (but not deadly) inside the tent on the evening of February 1, 1959.

    • There was the will not to make any staging to impress the government of Krushchev in the Kremlin.

    • On the slope of Kholat Syakhl, the location judiciously chosen for the attack, was far from inhabited places so the 9 hikers had no possibility to go for help.

    • The attackers obviously had no firearms

    • The attackers were simply equipped with "big stick" (piece of wood, blunt object...), easy to get, never to be jammed, and above all silent which is a great advantage in the night fight.

    • The tactic of the attackers was to isolate the victims one by one and to strike first with decisive blows.

Naturally, I can deduce that the 3 murderers were of the strong type to be able to strike hard, and also that they had neither any hesitation nor mercy....


Charles:
Hello Jean-Daniel,


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 04, 2022, 10:19:13 AM --- • The 9 hikers were attacked by surprise by a small number of contract killers, probably only 3.
--- End quote ---

I agree with all except with "contract".


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 04, 2022, 10:19:13 AM ---    • The emergency exit from the tent can easily be explained by the introduction of a tear gas grenade or suffocating gas (but not deadly) inside the tent on the evening of February 1, 1959.
--- End quote ---

It is even easier to explain it with a shot fired in the air.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 04, 2022, 10:19:13 AM ---    • There was the will not to make any staging to impress the government of Krushchev in the Kremlin.
--- End quote ---

As long as there was no bullet wound, no knife wound, the scene was "clean". No need to stage, no need to clean the scene.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 04, 2022, 10:19:13 AM ---    • On the slope of Kholat Syakhl, the location judiciously chosen for the attack, was far from inhabited places so the 9 hikers had no possibility to go for help.
--- End quote ---

I agree.


--- Quote from: Jean Daniel Reuss on June 04, 2022, 10:19:13 AM ---    • The attackers obviously had no firearms
--- End quote ---

Why not ? The other group of hikers had at least one shotgun or rifle, and the Mansi hunter of whom they followed the tracks had a shotgun or a rifle. Why "contract killers" would deprive themselves of the comfort and security of carrying firearms ? While non hostile hikers and hunters had firearms ? If the idea was to kill a group of nine one by one, they had to be able to control the remaining ones... firearms used to threaten but not to kill.

Charles:
And by the way, this reminds me that long time ago I read a book written by Józef Czapski: The Inhuman Land (1951), where the author remember that the NKVD used to "kill by the cold". He testified he saw trains full of frozen POV during WWII in the USSR, who were deliberately abandoned in the cold until death ensues.

Jean Daniel Reuss:



--- Quote from: Charles on June 04, 2022, 05:50:31 PM ---                                 Reply #3
..... the NKVD used to "kill by the cold"...........
...... who were deliberately abandoned in the cold until death ensues.....

--- End quote ---

Yes, there have been many reports of killing by cold for a long time.
For instance, in the history of the Solovki special camp that later became the Solovki special prison (1923-1939).

It is an economical and simple procedure which may eventually offer the advantage of being able to be disguised as an accident, unlike execution by a bullet in the back of the skull which leaves irrefutable evidence of murder.

Extra : To get an idea of the atmosphere (ambiance) of snowy journeys with poor equipment like that of our 9 hikers, I would also advise you to read Jacques Rossi's book :

The Gulag handbook: an encyclopedia dictionary of Soviet penitentiary institutions and terms related to the forced labor camps,
which was originally written in Russian and was translated into French (1997), English (1987).....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Rossi

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

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