All theories about militarry tests does not make any sence.
If military make some bomb/weapon tests, they also want to see the effects. During every test must be minimaly present an observer, or observation team for effects evaluation in drop zone. This tests are usualy documentated very well by video records, photos because of effeciency evaluation. Why to test something when you cannot see the effects?
Especially why to make it at night? In year 1959 when does not exist any night vision items? What is the sence of this "test"?
Any observer will never give a green light to bomb drop in case of spot 9 persons in drop area.
Check this vide of weapon tests in soviet union. You can see the whole observation staff. (Generals, ambulance, cameramans, delegations, etc..)
I served in military. When we were in natural shooting range and in drop zone was located an animal, then we had to immediatelly stop the fire till the animal left the drop zone. (Real situation was different when CO was not presented) If there will be a human body, than it will be very big broblem. If we will have 9 human in drop zone, than I cannot imagine, that we should continue with firing.
Take in mind that Dyatlavovs were loyal, yound engineers - the future of Soviet Union, so I cannot see any reason why to kill them by Goverment.
this thread is not about a weapon test, nor a bomb dropped on the hikers.
i said that maybe some kind of failed space test (gagarin succesfully went in orbit 2 years later) prompted the military to silence the witnesses.
not a weapon, maybe they tried to send a guy in space but he died. or just some sort of satellite. or maybe they were just testing a rocket to see if it reached orbit and it went off course above the urals.
or maybe the rocket worked, but the "re-entry capsule" exploded.
what i'm trying to say is that men, possibly military or secret services, killed the hikers trying to make it look like an accident.
to cover some NON WEAPON failed test that possibly went off course.
plenty of young loyal civilians have been killed directly or indirectly ( to hide the truth) by the government. even when chernobyll exploded the government initially lied about the danger, and caused the death of thousand of young and loyal citizens, just to not admit their nuclear plant exploded.
if you have nothing to lose youll behave ethically, if you risk an international scandal, and to be ashamed by the USA. those 9 civilians are an acceptable collateral damage.