air/space craft accident leading to military attack

[Nordlander]

The KGB was aware of U2 overflights since at least 1958. (Btw, the CIA was FURIOUS that Gary Powers had let himself be taken alive. He had some saxitocin (poison) on him that he was supposed to have taken). No reports of crashes in the area have come out from either the USSR or the USA in the years since the end of the Cold War, though of course the incidents could still be classified....though there really doesn't seem to be a good reason for keeping such things secret.

..which brings me to the next question. I'm going to Washington, DC, at the end of April. Let me know if you want me to look up any documents while I am there. Military weaponry and aircraft are not my areas of expertise. Please contact me soon if interested since I may need to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

We know there were no CIA assets anywhere nearby. The idea is laughable. The Americans didn't know what isotopes the Soviets were using and tried other means to find out. Even by the time of Nixon's visit in the early 70s they were still trying to find out more about the yields of the plants in the Urals.

I don't think the radioactivity came from any weapons or flights. I've assumed since I heard of the incident that it was radioactive dust sprayed or dusted onto one or two of the hikers who worked in the nuclear industry and thus had classified knowledge. Intelligence wanted to trace their movements and ensure they didn't defect. That was a KGB trick: use a particular isotope and then follow the "piste" to make sure, say, that the person hadn't gone to a foreign embassy. That would explain why a Geiger counter was brought to the hill so quickly. The KGB usually did this kind of thing in remote areas and/or in what was called the Third World, which is where I experienced it--doing it in the West would cause too many repercussions for their own agents. (Detente actually worked: the radiation poisonings in London were much bolder than the events of the Cold War).

So that brings up the question of how the dust got on the students. I suspect the incident at the police station, but it could have been with them from the start.

[Jacques-Emile]

Therefore this discussion at the given forum already is malicious offtop.

I reply longer and then do not submit.
My theory is, bear with me, that an accident happened to some kind of (possibly top secret) aircraft high in the air, maybe even a reentry capsule from a space test, and the debris fell all over the area. a team of military were sent to recover the debris and to cleanup the evidence, and to their surprise spotted the tent of the Dyatlov expedition, being them possible witnesses of the accident, the decision was made to silence them by staging their death.
I try to support Webby new beginner post and agreed, I do not do it successfully.  I will not try.  Not malicious.

Rockets are old things to a sailor.  If there is one type of boating safety equipment you are unlikely to use until you need it in an emergency, it's pyrotechnic visual distress signals - as in flares, rockets, smoke signals, and other attention getting devices that burn, sputter, smoke or explode. Their intended purpose is to summon help should the need arise and should be displayed only when immediate or potential danger exists.   Rockets that go 1km. high and use bright magnesium fire and parachute can be seen for 75 km. 

People make little rockets for fun.  In America these toys are available to people. The NAR supports all aspects of safe consumer sport rocket flying, from small model rockets with youth groups to very large high power rockets with serious adult hobbyists. It is a recognized national authority for safety certification of consumer rocket motors and user certification of high- power rocket fliers in the U.S. It is the author of safety codes for the hobby that are recognized and accepted by manufacturers and public safety officials nationwide.   They launch toy rockets.  if you wish to reuse your rocket you put a parachute on it.  Some people place also flare like the boat flares to watch where toy comes down.  So don't lose the toy.

Maybe engineers building and testing military rockets are also so smart.  Maybe they launch rocket test stages with flare and parachute so that the military can find the pieces of the secret rocket when they land so spies do not steal.  Imagine that such a rocket like SAM were test fired in some place.  If a first stage rocket goes to 5 km, it is visible for great distance - hundreds kilometers.  So you go far away to test it where no people are.  If you send rocket to 33 km, how far to go so no people see it in sky coming down in parachute after all fuel burns up?  Far, far away.  But I say nothing if this is done in USSR.

That is all I say I am done.

[Radim]

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.

Radim

[Jacques-Emile]

So I agree now yes no military test involved. Glad question answered. Off.

[wizzy]

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.

Radim

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.
why?
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.

[Aspen]

Hi Wizzy, I appreciate your making that distinction.  However, I don't see any reason at all for the military to kill these young people over a failed test.  If the hikers happened to see something, and later brought up the matter to authorities, the military only need to say that they were 'only doing routine work on a project'.  Which they do all the time.  End of the story. 

It would be completely illogical for the military to go out of its way to kill potential witnesses to a failed military test.

As for those who died from the Chernobyl incident, they died from nuclear exposure, not from direct action from the military.  There is a world of difference.

[wizzy]

if the news of a failed test, complete with potential pictures of an aicraft exploding, and testimonies of 9 intelligent learned university students made it out of russia, the image of the country would have suffered, particularly in that day and age of rush to space for technological supremacy.

lots of people in chernobyll (thousnads) died because of the INACTION of the autorities, that rather than admitting the incident, said it was not dangerous, and didn't evacuate a lot of civilians in time, causing their death.
i mentioned it because it proves that the russin government would rather have thousands of civilians die, rather than soiling the image of the country, it speaks a lot about the value they gave to human life... what is the death of 9 hikers against the image of mother russia? nothing.
the decision to stall the evacuation, and minimize the incident is as criminal as killing them with a bullet to the head.

[Aspen]

The purpose of military tests is to find out deficiencies.  Such tests sometimes go wrong.  It is the nature of a test, nothing to get excited about. 

Moreover, it is doubtful that the military would conduct a test in darkness.  I think we all agree that the incident that drove the Dyatlov group out of their tent occurred at night.  Another poster on this site (sorry, can’t remember who) with a military background pointed out that military tests are conducted in daylight so they can clearly see the performance of the equipment they are testing.

In the case of the Chernobyl incident, it is understood that the government initially failed to warn the population of the dangerous level of radiation.  But there are many examples of other governmental bureaucracies that tried to cover up their failures, fully knowing that it will jeopardize others’ lives.  In Canada there is the tainted blood scandal.  In the USA, following the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre, the government initially claimed the dust was safe, when in fact they knew it contained significant amounts of asbestos which contaminated thousands of people, especially the first responders, who have yet to obtain support and compensation, and many have already died from this.  These cover ups are about failing to inform and/or protect.  This is vastly different from the military killing their own countrymen because they may have seen something.

[gypsy]

Moreover, it is doubtful that the military would conduct a test in darkness.  I think we all agree that the incident that drove the Dyatlov group out of their tent occurred at night.  Another poster on this site (sorry, can’t remember who) with a military background pointed out that military tests are conducted in daylight so they can clearly see the performance of the equipment they are testing.

Agreed to an extent. On the other hand, there are areas of miltary tactics that are indeed rehearsed and conducted during night, e.g. navigation, paratrooper landings, night bombing (test usually not performed with real warheads, just marking flares and missiles without a real warhead), range tests or even biological/chemical weapons (in that case it makes sense to hide these kind activities from broad daylight)

I speculated before that if a military incident/test was supposed to take place, it had something to do with technology not to be known by the NATO states. The USSR/KGB was fully aware of the spyplanes monitoring the land. Hence we have a reason to test something at night in the remote area of Ural mountains. And as you said before, anything could have gone wrong.

Yes, most of the tests are conducted during daytime, but there are exceptions so we cannot rule this option out based on day/night premise.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

If it so, please list those signs and the facts which speak about intervention of other people. If such arguments are not present, it will be too fantasy sign. If the person cannot explain to itself (and another) that occurs, it not occasion for this purpose what consider that there was malicious intention of other people.

The signs and fact is told by the bodies and the autopsy reports.

The injuries suffered by the members of the Dyatlov group are consistent with attack by other humans.

There were no avalanches in the area.

There were no heights from which they could suffer lethal falls. Also, the injury patterns are not what is seen in fall accidents.

In conclusion, there were no kinds of natural phenomena that could force these nine resourceful people out from their tent without proper winter clothing.

There is every indication that the nine were forced out from their tent, then left to die in the cold. Because the temperature was too high, the victims did not perish soon. Then the attackers had to hunt down their victims, and dispatch them one by one. The injuries leave no doubt here.

[ash73]

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.

Luna 1 was launched just a month earlier, in a failed attempt to rendezvous with the Moon. Luna 2 was successful in Sept, but they also launched another failed mission in June and kept it secret. Maybe they tried another time? It's interesting it takes a route over the pole; a launch from Baikonur would go somewhere close to Dyatlov pass.



I wondered if it might have been an early attempt to lob a spy sat into polar orbit, but the earliest record I can find of that is the Molniya orbit launches in the mid 60s. Probably more likely to be a test of a nearby SAM, I wonder if they keep records of all the tests.

The hikers could have been injured by debris falling to Earth, with the rest of the scenario playing out as a consequence. But there would need to be evidence of a launch, or a nearby crater, or some calculation of where the stages would fall.

[sarapuk]

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.

Luna 1 was launched just a month earlier, in a failed attempt to rendezvous with the Moon. Luna 2 was successful in Sept, but they also launched another failed mission in June and kept it secret. Maybe they tried another time? It's interesting it takes a route over the pole; a launch from Baikonur would go somewhere close to Dyatlov pass.



I wondered if it might have been an early attempt to lob a spy sat into polar orbit, but the earliest record I can find of that is the Molniya orbit launches in the mid 60s. Probably more likely to be a test of a nearby SAM, I wonder if they keep records of all the tests.

The hikers could have been injured by debris falling to Earth, with the rest of the scenario playing out as a consequence. But there would need to be evidence of a launch, or a nearby crater, or some calculation of where the stages would fall.

This Theory doesnt fit with the actual Events on the ground. No Evidence of any metal being found at the Sites of the Events that made up the whole. Injuries not consistent with falling debris. And so on.

[ash73]

I agree there's no physical evidence; where is the debris, where is the crater? But I could imagine it happening. It's an interesting scenario because it would mean the authorities were taking large risks and provided no compensation to the families; which says a lot about life in Russia.

Also, it's all very well demanding evidence, but the real world isn't like CSI or Miss Marple where everything fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. In a trial you're presented with two seemingly credible versions of events, with conflicting evidence, and ultimately you have to decide who is telling you a pack of lies.

The rocket hypothesis relies on low probability happenstance, but I don't think it's a bad fit in some ways:

- Most of their injuries could be explained by a rocket impact. Nearby explosion, pressure wave, blinding light, etc would be enough to send them fleeing down the hill, the rest was a natural consequence

- Government cover-up, authorities first on scene, high ranking officials being involved, evidence going missing, case being closed down prematurely

- Witnesses seeing lights in the sky. There would be a bright light from the rocket, then multiple lights from helicopters searching for debris, which fits with separate sightings on 02 and 17 Feb.

- Unsubstantiated claim by Bogachev (who worked at a secret research institute) that Dyatlov was known in those circles to be the victim of a spent rocket launcher dropped on the Urals

- Anecdotal stories about large pieces of metal being found on the mountain (one by Mansi), and photos of similar debris being retrieved elsewhere in the Urals

We know Russia carried out regular rocket launches from Kapustin Yar and Baikonur in the South, and their trajectory would be North over Russian territory, roughly in the direction of Dyatlov Pass. Single stage rockets such as the R-12 wouldn't reach the coast. They will have jettisoned stages over the Urals, what other trajectory could they use? Statistically there would be little chance of an incident, but there was always a possibility.

We also know they were testing new SAMs to intercept the U2, at that time.

There are also weaknesses with the hypothesis, like all others. But unlike other scenarios, if it was a rocket we might find out eventually... as more details of tests become declassified over time.

[sarapuk]

I agree there's no physical evidence; where is the debris, where is the crater? But I could imagine it happening. It's an interesting scenario because it would mean the authorities were taking large risks and provided no compensation to the families; which says a lot about life in Russia.

Also, it's all very well demanding evidence, but the real world isn't like CSI or Miss Marple where everything fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. In a trial you're presented with two seemingly credible versions of events, with conflicting evidence, and ultimately you have to decide who is telling you a pack of lies.

The rocket hypothesis relies on low probability happenstance, but I don't think it's a bad fit in some ways:

- Most of their injuries could be explained by a rocket impact. Nearby explosion, pressure wave, blinding light, etc would be enough to send them fleeing down the hill, the rest was a natural consequence

- Government cover-up, authorities first on scene, high ranking officials being involved, evidence going missing, case being closed down prematurely

- Witnesses seeing lights in the sky. There would be a bright light from the rocket, then multiple lights from helicopters searching for debris, which fits with separate sightings on 02 and 17 Feb.

- Unsubstantiated claim by Bogachev (who worked at a secret research institute) that Dyatlov was known in those circles to be the victim of a spent rocket launcher dropped on the Urals

- Anecdotal stories about large pieces of metal being found on the mountain (one by Mansi), and photos of similar debris being retrieved elsewhere in the Urals

We know Russia carried out regular rocket launches from Kapustin Yar and Baikonur in the South, and their trajectory would be North over Russian territory, roughly in the direction of Dyatlov Pass. Single stage rockets such as the R-12 wouldn't reach the coast. They will have jettisoned stages over the Urals, what other trajectory could they use? Statistically there would be little chance of an incident, but there was always a possibility.

We also know they were testing new SAMs to intercept the U2, at that time.

There are also weaknesses with the hypothesis, like all others. But unlike other scenarios, if it was a rocket we might find out eventually... as more details of tests become declassified over time.

Well I did Jury Service in a Criminal Court Of Law in England. Sat on 2 Cases. Excellent experience. I highly recommend it if you get the chance. Its not really about being given 2 versions or even more versions and then deciding who is telling lies. There is much more to a Criminal Court Case than that. But obviously you do need to look at what Evidence there is and listen to what all the Witnesses have to say. You are shown things that the Public cant see relating to the particular Case. And really isnt the Dyatlov Case a bit like that, we are not being shown everything. Unfortunatley thats because of the Authorities. If there was ever a proper Court Case for the Dyatlov Incident then there would probably be a Jury or some such means of deciding the Case.

[ash73]

Well I did Jury Service in a Criminal Court Of Law in England. Sat on 2 Cases. Excellent experience. I highly recommend it if you get the chance. Its not really about being given 2 versions or even more versions and then deciding who is telling lies. There is much more to a Criminal Court Case than that. But obviously you do need to look at what Evidence there is and listen to what all the Witnesses have to say. You are shown things that the Public cant see relating to the particular Case. And really isnt the Dyatlov Case a bit like that, we are not being shown everything. Unfortunatley thats because of the Authorities. If there was ever a proper Court Case for the Dyatlov Incident then there would probably be a Jury or some such means of deciding the Case.

I did Jury service a few years ago too, it was quite interesting. I went in thinking I'd just quietly offer my opinion and sit back and let them get on with it, but decided the Jury was going in the wrong direction so I got engaged and turned around 7 of them in the space of a few days, and got a guilty verdict. The debate was fascinating, I was emotionally exhausted by the end of it! Came out feeling I'd done something useful, for once in my life.

[sarapuk]

Well I did Jury Service in a Criminal Court Of Law in England. Sat on 2 Cases. Excellent experience. I highly recommend it if you get the chance. Its not really about being given 2 versions or even more versions and then deciding who is telling lies. There is much more to a Criminal Court Case than that. But obviously you do need to look at what Evidence there is and listen to what all the Witnesses have to say. You are shown things that the Public cant see relating to the particular Case. And really isnt the Dyatlov Case a bit like that, we are not being shown everything. Unfortunatley thats because of the Authorities. If there was ever a proper Court Case for the Dyatlov Incident then there would probably be a Jury or some such means of deciding the Case.

I did Jury service a few years ago too, it was quite interesting. I went in thinking I'd just quietly offer my opinion and sit back and let them get on with it, but decided the Jury was going in the wrong direction so I got engaged and turned around 7 of them in the space of a few days, and got a guilty verdict. The debate was fascinating, I was emotionally exhausted by the end of it! Came out feeling I'd done something useful, for once in my life.

Well thats interesting because in my first Case I did the same as you I managed to turn the Jury just enougth to get the right decision and even the Judge said it was just the right decision, but only just. It just goes to show how Cases can be very tricky.