Okay, I feel, it's getting a little confusing. Might only be me, but I'll try to structure this according to aspects, anyway:
1. Potyazhenko says, he discovered the tent when flying over. He also says, that there were people present.
2. He also says, the tent stood, was not collapsed and there was little snow on it, he could see inside and saw the Evening Otorten and a to-do-list.
3. Him discovering the tent is not part of the case files.
4. It is, however, in the case files, that two different groups state to have found the tent first (which both do not include Potyazhenko).
5. tenne says, he couldn't report his finding the tent, because he was not ordered to do so.
6. tenne takes his testimony to prove, that helicopters could land at the side without a landing pad.
7. tenne concludes, that the people seen by Potyazhenko were those, who staged the scene and that it was possible for them to get there by means of helicopter without having to build a landing pad first.
8. tenne also says, that at the time there were helicopters with technology that allowed for flying at night (i.e. lights and instruments for flying without seeing the world outside) and that those lights could be what people saw and took for UFOs.
So much for the actual line of argument. As for that: It seems consistent to me so far.
BUT: Potyazhenko also mentions a landing pad there, that was too small for his helicopter. As I understand it, he's talking about the day, he first saw the tent. If so, this means there was a landing pad there, before the other searchers arrived at the location. Why did nobody mention the landing pad?
I know, they tried to build a landing pad and definitely did in the vicinity of the searchers camp. That was quite a while later, though.
I personally can't see, why the staging of the scene could be so important as to use the (as I understand it) then rather high end equipment of helicopters that were able to fly safely at night in that area and even allow for landing or unloading of 9 bodies, a tent and a larger amount of stuff.
I completely agree with it being dangerous to not follow orders at the time in the USSR. I still find some things he mentions inconsistent. Which I attribute not to lying on his part but rather to the changing of memories over decades. Therefore I consider his testimony less reliable as those in the case files.
@Ziljoe:
The USSR was indeed known as a rather violent dictatorship, especially in the times of Stalin. And it is a fact, that people went outside to buy bread and ended up in a gulag in Siberia, sometimes without their relatives getting a message about it. (Knowledge I acquired from documentaries and was shocked, I have to say.)
I can't say how and how fast that changed after Stalin's death and therefore how it affected the DPI.
The helicopters of the search team are not reported to fly at night. On the contrary, you are right that there were days they were not allowed to fly at all because of weather conditions. tenne was talking about the theory of people staging the scene getting there by helicopter.
Your question as to
where the actual incident happened and how it was possible to land there, assuming the whole thing was staged, is an interesting one. I didn't think about that end of the incident.
Okay, and now last odds and ends...
@ Loose}{Cannon:
There were several helicopters and airplanes involved. As I understand the interview, the one helicopter Potyazhenko refers to was a military one. Did you refer to that one or did you talk more in general?
Searching:
It is a fact that there were several search teams in different areas. Who decided what areas were searched? Does anyone have a source at hand?
And even IF there is a source stating that it was not decided by stately agents, one could still argue, that it was the state that acted as a puppeteer.
Telling the truth and enemies of the state:
I'd say, it didn't matter if you were telling the truth or lying, as long as you were telling things the government didn't like, you did get problems very soon. I'm not sure if they'd call you an enemy of the state. But then again, who cares what they'd call you. I'd consider it more important, what they'd do to you.
Sorry for wall of text...
Topic: first sighting of tent (Read 11947 times)
