December 15, 2019, 01:58:28 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: air/space craft accident leading to military attack  (Read 2232 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

March 29, 2019, 09:23:40 PM
Reply #30
Offline

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.


March 30, 2019, 10:16:25 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Jacques-Emile


Quote
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.

April 09, 2019, 02:18:11 AM
Reply #32

Radim

Guest
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

April 12, 2019, 11:21:21 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Jacques-Emile


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

June 24, 2019, 05:06:49 PM
Reply #34
Offline

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.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 05:12:52 PM by wizzy »

June 24, 2019, 11:45:41 PM
Reply #35
Offline

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.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 12:35:37 AM by Aspen »

June 25, 2019, 03:06:14 PM
Reply #36
Offline

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.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 03:11:27 PM by wizzy »

June 26, 2019, 01:13:22 AM
Reply #37
Offline

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.

June 26, 2019, 03:49:16 PM
Reply #38
Offline

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.