picture of the lights

[GlennM]

They couldn't call it capitalism,  but spinning a good old fashioned conspiracy complete with lights in the sky and even  LGM certainly supllemented the retirement pension, yes?

[Ziljoe]

They couldn't call it capitalism,  but spinning a good old fashioned conspiracy complete with lights in the sky and even  LGM certainly supllemented the retirement pension, yes?

Exactly — the glasnost tabloids discovered that mysteries sell better than meteorology

[Senior Maldonado]

The glasnost tabloids discovered that mysteries sell better than meteorology

While the 'Bad weather" theory proponents hint that Lev Ivanov raised money by distributing his fantasies in tabloids, we may return to the topic of this thread and look at the Sheets 378-380 from the case files. We can see that prosecutor from the town of Novaya-Lyalya interrogared Mr.Skorykh, who said the following:

"I ran out onto the porch, and from the second floor of the house I live in, I saw a large, glowing ball moving northward and flashing red and green lights in turn. The ball was moving very quickly, and I only had a few seconds to observe it before it disappeared over the horizon."

The first question we might ask is: why did the prosecutor of Novaya-Lyalya decide to interrogate a witness about "glowing ball"? Novaya-Lyalya is a different region, which is nothing to do with the Ivdel region. The only reasonable answer is that the prosecutor received an investigative order from Sverdlovsk, highly likely from Ivanov. This clearly indicates that already in 1959 Ivanov was actively looking for fireballs evidence. In 1990-s he just revived this line of investigation.

Now, we can see that the "glowing ball" was flashing red and green lights, and this rules out a meteor, which would not have used air navigation alarm signals. We end up either with manmade flying object or with aliens ship, which politely switched on navigation lights in the Earth's atmosphere. In both cases we have a proof of certain artificial object flying over the Urals the same month the DPI occurred. As the object remaind unidentified, it gave Ivanov full right to talk about UFOs in 1990-s

[Ziljoe]

Pershin questioning a man in Novaya‑Lyalya doesn’t prove Ivanov ordered anything. It proves Pershin had a pen, a witness, and a circular on his desk.

If Ivanov was ‘actively hunting fireballs’, he forgot to mention it in his own investigation, his own notes, his own conclusion, and every document he actually signed.

[GlennM]

Well, it is,certainly kind of the LGM to flash colors we are capable of seeing It would also be kind if Gary Powers kept his  running lights on while thumbing his nose at the bear. I can't help but feel that if Ivanov was fishing for a sensationalistic twist on the DPI, Mr. Skorykh could spin him a yarn or two. I mean these red and green lights each being distinct  and bright enough to be seem crossing a mountain range? I am thinking pin point light sources like twinkling stars. Red and green lights...on wingtips? Rotating single source? Stars? Pulling Ivanov's leg? Lights are not going to send nine people to their deaths, let alone do nothing more than raise an eyebrow. I think I've seen the light.

[Senior Maldonado]

Pershin questioning a man in Novaya‑Lyalya doesn’t prove Ivanov ordered anything. It proves Pershin had a pen, a witness, and a circular on his desk.

Most people tend to believe that investigation department of USSR Prosecutor's office worked shoddy and did not care much about Criminal Procedure Code. They do not know (or do not want to know) that Prosecutor's office was very disciplined structure, where subordinates strictly obeyed to the procedures and orders from higher ranked prosecutors.

A witness can only be interrogated (может быть допрошен) if a criminal case has been initiated, and only when one of the two options is valid:
1. When the investigator is in charge of the criminal case, or when the investigator is a member of an investigative team that is investigating the case.
2. When the investigator is carrying out an investigative assignment from another investigator who is in charge of the case. In 1959 that was Article 126 of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code.



The interrogation protocol of Skorykh dated May 29th 1959 has all the attributes of interrogation protocol conducted in accordance with investigative assignment. The interrogation of Popov dated February 6th 1959 fits the same type of procedure as well.

[Ziljoe]

I'm using AI to try and build an over all view of why these documents exist. I'm also arguing against it. Quite difficult. The problem we have is what's procedure and the contradiction that if what I put forward below . If Popov's statement was done under some criminal case then the case files are not legal. That means they weren't following process and obeying anything.

Below is what I think is what we are seeing.

1. Popov’s 6 February protocol = routine administrative verification
Popov’s document has none of the legal attributes of a Criminal Procedure Code interrogation:

- no case number 
- no article of the code 
- no investigator title 
- no procedural warnings 
- no investigative content 

This places it squarely in the category of a pre‑case verification interview — the kind routinely done during missing‑person checks, tourism oversight, and winter route monitoring. It is simply a duty officer recording what the local communications chief knew about tourist movements.

It is not evidence of a criminal case on 6 February.

---

⭐ 2. Early enquiries (Feb 12–20) were improvised and fragmented
Once the group missed their expected telegram on 12 February, concern escalated gradually. The search organisation documents (12 Feb–8 Mar) show:

- the Sports Committee did not have the route plan 
- the route had to be reconstructed from Dyatlov’s friend who dropped out 
- local authorities were asked to check hut logs, depot logs, and village sightings 
- Popov’s note fits exactly into this pattern 

These were “feelers”, not criminal investigative actions.

---

⭐ 3. Search planning followed the reconstructed route
Once the route was pieced together, the search teams did what any competent rescue operation would do:

1. Identify the furthest point (Otorten). 
2. Identify intermediate waypoints (Auspia, Lozva, labaz). 
3. Deploy teams to multiple likely locations simultaneously. 

This is documented in the “Organization of the Search” sheets (12 Feb–8 Mar) .

---

⭐ 4. The tent changed everything
When the tent was found on 26 February, the search instantly shifted from “find the hikers” to “recover the hikers”.

The case file shows:

- search groups at other locations were recalled 
- all manpower was redirected to the tent area 
- the criminal case was opened that same day (26–28 Feb) 
- subsequent witness testimonies begin after the case is opened 

This is exactly what you’d expect in a real‑time rescue‑to‑recovery transition.

---

⭐ 5. Pershin’s later note (29 May) is just a late administrative report
Pershin’s document:

- arrives months after the case is opened 
- has no assignment 
- has no procedural status 
- contains no Dyatlov‑specific content 
- matches the pattern of a district prosecutor responding to a circular 

It was placed in the file because Instruction No. 33 required all late‑arriving materials to be stored with the case.

It is not evidence of a secret early investigation.

---

⭐ Final synthesis


- Popov’s 6 Feb note = routine check, not a criminal action. 
- Early enquiries = ad hoc information‑gathering to reconstruct the route. 
- Search plan = logical progression from reconstructed route to Otorten. 
- Tent discovery = pivot point that pulled all teams to one location. 
- Pershin’s note = administrative debris, not a hidden investigative order.

This is the simplest explanation

[Senior Maldonado]

- Popov’s 6 Feb note = routine check, not a criminal action. 
- Pershin’s note = administrative debris, not a hidden investigative order.

О, yes! That was obviously common approach of soviet criminal invesigators. Popov participated just in routine check, but he was asked to sign understanding of possible legal consequences according to Articles 92 & 95 of the Criminal Law. Pershin and Skorykh had just a friendly chat about flying objects, but Skorykh was also asked to sign understanding of possible legal consequences. Now, expert Vozrozhdenniy performed 9 autopsies and issued 9 acts. Each act is a key document for the criminal case, which defines what was cause of death of each hiker. But Vozrozhdenniy was not asked to sign even a single understanding clause, which gave him absolute freedom to write in the acts whatever he wanted - no punishment would have followed. Nice settlement, isn't it? But I am sure, AI will justify that -- all soviet investigators treated case files like that. 

[Ziljoe]

- Popov’s 6 Feb note = routine check, not a criminal action. 
- Pershin’s note = administrative debris, not a hidden investigative order.

О, yes! That was obviously common approach of soviet criminal invesigators. Popov participated just in routine check, but he was asked to sign understanding of possible legal consequences according to Articles 92 & 95 of the Criminal Law. Pershin and Skorykh had just a friendly chat about flying objects, but Skorykh was also asked to sign understanding of possible legal consequences. Now, expert Vozrozhdenniy performed 9 autopsies and issued 9 acts. Each act is a key document for the criminal case, which defines what was cause of death of each hiker. But Vozrozhdenniy was not asked to sign even a single understanding clause, which gave him absolute freedom to write in the acts whatever he wanted - no punishment would have followed. Nice settlement, isn't it? But I am sure, AI will justify that -- all soviet investigators treated case files like that. 

Senior, for me it is difficult to understand every process that took place but I'm trying to apply logic to what has been presented. It seems slightly counter intuitive, that I accept but you’re treating the presence of Articles 92/95 as if it automatically makes a document a CPC interrogation. It doesn’t. Those clauses appear on all standard protocol templates — including the ones used in pre‑case verification, workplace checks, administrative questioning, and missing‑person enquiries. The form carries the warning by default; the legal status comes from the case number, investigator authority, and procedural framing. Popov’s 6 Feb note has none of those attributes.

By contrast, Vozrozhdenny’s autopsy acts are CPC documents — they’re part of the investigative section of the case file — and the CPC does not require a forensic expert to sign a witness‑warning clause because an autopsy act is not testimony. It’s an expert conclusion. Different procedural category, different requirements.

So the pattern is perfectly consistent: 
– administrative interviews use the standard template with the boilerplate warning, 
– criminal interrogations require a case number and investigator authority, 
– expert acts do not require witness warnings at all.

There’s no contradiction here — just three different document types being treated according to their own rules.

In AI simplicity below

Why Popov’s 6 Feb document is not a CPC interrogation
Even though the header says “Protocol of witness testimony”, the legal status of a document in 1959 depended on three things:

1. Case number 
2. Investigator assigned to the case 
3. Reference to the criminal case in the header

Popov’s document has none of these.

It has:

- no case number 
- no article of the CPC 
- no mention of an investigator assigned to a case 
- no reference to a criminal file 
- no investigative questions 
- no connection to the Dyatlov case 

Instead, it has:

- a duty police officer (Chudinov), not an investigator 
- a village location, not an investigative office 
- administrative content (tourist sightings, weather) 
- a pre‑case date (6 Feb — the case wasn’t opened until 26–28 Feb)

This places it firmly in the category of pre‑case administrative verification, not a criminal interrogation.

---

 Why the Articles 92/95 warning appears anyway.


The warning clause (“forewarned of liability under Articles 92 and 95”) was:

- pre‑printed on the standard protocol form 
- used for all types of questioning 
- including administrative checks, workplace incidents, missing‑person enquiries, and routine police interviews 

The presence of the warning does not mean:

- a criminal case existed 
- the CPC was invoked 
- the person was a procedural witness 
- the document was part of an investigation 

It only means the officer used the standard blank form.

This is normal Soviet paperwork practice.

---
 Why Vozrozhdenny didn’t sign such a clause


- an autopsy act is not testimony 
- a forensic expert is not a witness 
- CPC rules do not require experts to sign witness‑liability warnings 
- experts sign expert conclusions, not witness protocols 

Different document type → different legal requirements.

There is no inconsistency.

---

⭐ What Popov’s document actually is
It is:

- a routine administrative interview 
- taken by a local police captain 
- during the missing‑tourist verification period 
- using a standard protocol template 
- later inserted into the case file once the criminal case was opened 

This is exactly how pre‑case materials were handled.




So, it seems there are layers to the case file that don't look logical if we assume that all the documents in it are conducted by the investigators at the same time and for the same reason under a criminal case number.

Popov's statement is the easiest one to look at ,as it has the biggest extreme of what we would expect to find.It's signed the 6th of February as you know and the hiker's weren't really reported missing until after the 12th .

So, it's either a conspiracy, a typo, or something else .  The something else is a routine over sight statement collected at some point during the search or investigation . Popov was interviewed by a duty police officer on the comings and goings of people moving through Vishay on completely separate issue's to the dyatlov group. It was a routine check , this was a standard practice and these statements were written on the piece of paper that said interrogation as that's basically all they had .

During the official investigation phase or early search phase, Popov's routine document was collected as evidence and inserted into the case files . It's taken as evidence that the hikers passed through when they were supposed to, that's it , that's all....

[Senior Maldonado]

By contrast, Vozrozhdenny’s autopsy acts are CPC documents — they’re part of the investigative section of the case file — and the CPC does not require a forensic expert to sign a witness‑warning clause because an autopsy act is not testimony. It’s an expert conclusion. Different procedural category, different requirements.

So the pattern is perfectly consistent: 
– administrative interviews use the standard template with the boilerplate warning, 
– criminal interrogations require a case number and investigator authority, 
– expert acts do not require witness warnings at all.

You do not need to go far to find out that the above statements are not correct.

What makes you think that soviet law enforcement officials used the same template for all types of communication with witnesses? Why do you think that there was no template for administrative interviews? And even if you think that there were no such templates and invesigators had to use universal interrogation template, why do you think that witnesses were asked to sign the understanding clause on those templates? Why was not that clause simply ignored, if the topic of communication was purely administrative?

In the case files you can find another expert's report - the tent inspection by Ms.Churkina. And you can see that her boss Mr.Kretov put his signature that Churkina was informed about possible consequences according to the Criminal Law articles 92 & 95. Why does it work here, but does not work in case with Vozrozhdenniy reports?

And finally, please consider what party Ivanov ordered to perform the autopsies. Was that a private expert or government organization? The reports say that Vozrozhdenniy represented Sverdlovsk region's criminal medical lab, which was based in Sverdlovsk. And do you see who actually issued the reports? First 4 reports were issued by Severouralsk branch office of the lab, which is more or less OK, though Vozrozhdenniy did not belong to the branch office. The report on Slobodin was issued by Ivdel's morgue (!). The last 4 reports were issued by Vozrozhdenniy as a private person, no organization was behind him. This clearly shows that Sverdlovsk region's criminal medical lab actually issued no reports -- at least, in the framework of the case files.

[Ziljoe]

By contrast, Vozrozhdenny’s autopsy acts are CPC documents — they’re part of the investigative section of the case file — and the CPC does not require a forensic expert to sign a witness‑warning clause because an autopsy act is not testimony. It’s an expert conclusion. Different procedural category, different requirements.

So the pattern is perfectly consistent: 
– administrative interviews use the standard template with the boilerplate warning, 
– criminal interrogations require a case number and investigator authority, 
– expert acts do not require witness warnings at all.

You do not need to go far to find out that the above statements are not correct.

What makes you think that soviet law enforcement officials used the same template for all types of communication with witnesses? Why do you think that there was no template for administrative interviews? And even if you think that there were no such templates and invesigators had to use universal interrogation template, why do you think that witnesses were asked to sign the understanding clause on those templates? Why was not that clause simply ignored, if the topic of communication was purely administrative?

In the case files you can find another expert's report - the tent inspection by Ms.Churkina. And you can see that her boss Mr.Kretov put his signature that Churkina was informed about possible consequences according to the Criminal Law articles 92 & 95. Why does it work here, but does not work in case with Vozrozhdenniy reports?

And finally, please consider what party Ivanov ordered to perform the autopsies. Was that a private expert or government organization? The reports say that Vozrozhdenniy represented Sverdlovsk region's criminal medical lab, which was based in Sverdlovsk. And do you see who actually issued the reports? First 4 reports were issued by Severouralsk branch office of the lab, which is more or less OK, though Vozrozhdenniy did not belong to the branch office. The report on Slobodin was issued by Ivdel's morgue (!). The last 4 reports were issued by Vozrozhdenniy as a private person, no organization was behind him. This clearly shows that Sverdlovsk region's criminal medical lab actually issued no reports -- at least, in the framework of the case files.

Senior, you’re stacking a lot of assumptions on top of one another and then treating them as if they were facts. Let’s separate what’s actually in the documents from what you’re inferring.

---

1. The 92/95 clause and “templates”

You’re arguing as if there were three different things:

- a “purely administrative” form with no warning 
- a “criminal interrogation” form with 92/95 
- and that the presence of 92/95 automatically proves the second

That’s not what the paperwork shows.

What we actually see in the Dyatlov file is:

- one standard protocol format used in multiple contexts 
- the same warning block (92/95) appearing whenever that format is used 
- different legal statuses determined not by the warning, but by:
  - presence/absence of a case number 
  - who is conducting it (investigator vs duty officer vs lab head) 
  - whether it’s attached to an open case or pre‑case material 

Popov’s 6 Feb protocol has:

- no case number 
- no reference to a criminal case 
- a local police captain, not an investigator 
- content unrelated to any specific offence 

So legally it sits in the pre‑case verification bucket, even though the officer used the standard protocol with the standard warning.

The warning is boilerplate. The status comes from context.

---

2. Churkina vs Vozrozhdenny

You’re treating Churkina’s tent inspection and Vozrozhdenny’s autopsies as if they were the same procedural act. They’re not.

- Churkina is giving a forensic‑style description of a physical object (the tent) in a form that is structured like a protocol. Her boss signs the 92/95 block because the document is framed as a protocol of inspection with an attached expert element.

- Vozrozhdenny is issuing expert conclusions (акты судебно‑медицинского исследования трупа). Those are not witness protocols and not “testimony” in the CPC sense. The CPC does not require experts to sign a witness‑liability clause for their conclusions; their responsibility is governed by other provisions and by their professional status.

Different document type → different formalities. The fact that one carries a 92/95 acknowledgement and the other doesn’t is exactly what you’d expect if you distinguish between “protocol of action with a warned participant” and “expert act”.

---

3. “Private person” vs “organization” in the autopsy headers

You’re reading far too much into the letterhead variations.

Across the nine acts we see:

- references to the Sverdlovsk regional forensic bureau 
- a Severouralsk branch 
- Ivdel morgue 
- and acts signed personally by Vozrozhdenny

That doesn’t mean:

- the regional lab “issued no reports” 
- or that he suddenly became a “private person” outside any institution 

It means:

- he was a regional expert working across multiple facilities 
- the acts were typed and registered where the bodies physically were 
- the header reflects the local facility, the signature reflects the expert 

This is completely normal for Soviet forensic practice: one expert, multiple sites, mixed headers, same procedural status.

---

4. The pattern you’re trying to call “inconsistent”

If you strip away the rhetoric, the pattern is actually very simple:

- Pre‑case / administrative questioning: 
  Standard protocol form, often with 92/95 block, no case number, used by local police or officials. Popov fits here.

- Criminal interrogations / procedural actions: 
  Protocols with case number, investigator authority, clear linkage to the opened case.

- Expert acts (autopsies, forensic conclusions): 
  Standalone expert documents, no witness‑warning clause, responsibility anchored in expert status and institutional framework, not in 92/95.

That’s not a “nice settlement” invented to excuse sloppiness; it’s just three different categories of document doing three different jobs.

If you want to argue that the Soviet system was messy or inconsistent in practice, that’s a separate discussion. But you can’t turn every appearance of 92/95 into a magic stamp of “criminal interrogation”, nor can you turn header variations into proof that a regional forensic lab “issued no reports"

[Senior Maldonado]

If you want to argue...

No, it's not my intention. I have just pointed to a few important drawbacks of the known case files. Such drawbacks cannot exist in real case files, which are supervised by the top Prosecutor's office officials. The case files are a camouflage for the main case, which was investigated by a special team of the RSFSR Prosecutor's office. The only requirement which was raised for the case files was that they should not point to the true cause of the incident. That's why any theory built on the contents of the case files solely is to fail.

[Ziljoe]

No, it's not my intention. I have just pointed to a few important drawbacks of the known case files. Such drawbacks cannot exist in real case files, which are supervised by the top Prosecutor's office officials. The case files are a camouflage for the main case, which was investigated by a special team of the RSFSR Prosecutor's office. The only requirement which was raised for the case files was that they should not point to the true cause of the incident. That's why any theory built on the contents of the case files solely is to fail.

Sorry Senior — “debate” might have been the better word.

I suppose the real question is whether one believes the files are complete or incomplete. But even if we set that aside, the internal structure of the documents we do have is still consistent with standard Soviet practice:

– administrative interviews on the standard protocol blank (with the boilerplate 92/95 warning), 
– criminal interrogations with a case number and investigator authority, 
– and expert acts that don’t require witness‑liability clauses at all.

That pattern doesn’t really change even if one assumes additional materials existed elsewhere.

I agree that it’s useful to consider hypothetical scenarios where the files might be incomplete or manipulated — that’s part of good analysis — but we also have to run that in parallel with what we know about Soviet paperwork from that era. That’s not easy, because a lot of comparable cases are still in regional archives or were never scanned in the first place.

I’m just not convinced the case files are “camouflage,” because they follow a very ordinary narrative for a search‑and‑recovery operation that turned into a death investigation with an unclear environmental cause. If there had been a special team trying to hide something, I would expect the files to be more conclusive, not less.

What sometimes looks like camouflage may simply be our modern misunderstanding of the type of documents we’re looking at and how Soviet law and paperwork functioned in that period. I am still learning as I go.

[Senior Maldonado]

Sorry Senior — “debate” might have been the better word.

Debate is always welcome! Format of the forum implies that. )

... how Soviet law and paperwork functioned in that period.

I do not know whether you have seen this in-depth analysis of the Soviet rules that regulated criminal medical expertise process. The materials presented by Olga include a lot of official instructions and real documents from that period, that draw completely different picture from yours.

https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=19002.msg1635925#msg1635925

Please have a look at the Olga's post and compare her comments with your statements how Soviet expert reports for criminal cases were done.

[Ziljoe]

Sorry Senior — “debate” might have been the better word.

Debate is always welcome! Format of the forum implies that. )

... how Soviet law and paperwork functioned in that period.

I do not know whether you have seen this in-depth analysis of the Soviet rules that regulated criminal medical expertise process. The materials presented by Olga include a lot of official instructions and real documents from that period, that draw completely different picture from yours.

https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=19002.msg1635925#msg1635925

Please have a look at the Olga's post and compare her comments with your statements how Soviet expert reports for criminal cases were done.

Thanks Senior — I’ll read through Olga’s post. It’s interesting background on Ustinov and on how the forensic service in Sverdlovsk developed, but I don’t actually see anything in it that contradicts the Dyatlov documents.

Her material describes the institutional framework of Soviet forensic medicine — who ran the bureau, how experts were trained, how the service was organised, and so on. That’s useful context, but it doesn’t show that the Dyatlov case file violates those rules, nor does it present any contradictory autopsy, protocol, or expert act.

The documents in the case file still fall into the standard categories we’d expect:

– protocols using the standard blank with the boilerplate 92/95 warning, 
– case‑numbered interrogations once the case was opened, 
– and expert acts, which don’t require witness‑liability clauses at all.

So while Olga’s post is valuable for understanding the history of the bureau and Ustinov’s role in it, it doesn’t actually demonstrate that the Dyatlov case file is “camouflage” or that it conflicts with the forensic regulations of the period.