Afaik Rustem's mystery shot isn't included on this site - https://www.svetlanaoss.com/blog/dyatlov-pass/cameras-and-the-night-sky-shooting/
Imo this and Yuri K's 33rd frame are of Ivanov's fire orbs but couldn't be removed from circulation (like Semyon's missing frames because they were immediately developed by the rescue team and became public knowledge.
I already wrote that Svetlana is the journalist and not so well understands about what she writes. For example, in the given text there are many erroneous opinion and conclusions from this as she understands this situation.
For example: It took time of approach of twilight from my early record on the Internet (in September 2006 г on a site of my friend Sergey Berlin http://sb-l.msk.ru/
) when I have specified 19:42 (it writes 7:42PM - but it is the English standard of a writing of time). Literally there appears: “I.e. moonless night 1.02.59 has come at 19:42.” (c)
But it concerns “astronomical twilight” when already it is completely dark, as well as at night. In the same place it has been specified and in “civil twilight” which have come at 17:52 (5:52 PM) which it simply ignored because she does not know that this such. This time when it is already enough dark, but even night has not come. That is, this latest time when the group should start to establish tent. After that time it is already almost dark.
Not understand such features the person far that it describes can only. Especially if to consider the following phrase: “it is interesting that pupils still used the chambers after darkness fell upon to the ground” (с) that definitely says that it does not understand possibilities of a photo absolutely.
Therefore it is not necessary to concern those conclusions by which it does concerning a photo seriously. She refers to article Valentine Yakimenko who writes about fine details on films which it accepts for UFO and rockets. But I wrote about it in article which is published on this site https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34?rbid=18461
. There all is in detail described. Those details about which Valentin Yakimenko speaks, are defects on a film. We in detail discuss it with it by e-mail now.
Therefore the reference to Svetlana Osadchuk not argument which is strong. It badly understands a photo.
PS. It is interesting that in this article has reference on Slobodin’s shot. (to the end of article). It shot not has relation neither to Slobodin, nor to its film. This shot is made in a mortuary when Slobodin there already was there. It was on film Lev Ivanov. Valentin Yakimenko was mistaken, when wrote about it. But the most interesting that it has given the reference to …. me?! I never no spoke about it. I have resulted this shot as an illustration to that rectangular windows at wrong focusing start to come nearer to the circle form.