Proshkin interview

[amashilu]

Today's 2026 Proshkin interview, presented by both Teddy and Axelrod, suggests that what happened at Dyatlov Pass was connected to the 21st Party Congress that was taking place at the same time as the DP hike, January 27 through February 5.

I am not sure that I understand it all, as I think Proshkin speaks carefully, but here is what I gathered:

It seems Khrushchev wanted to use the conference to present his leadership as a shining star to the world and perhaps was hoping that a rocket could be launched during the conference time period, to impress everyone. At this time, rockets were being tested in Russia; that much is known. And in just two more years (1961), all the testing paid off and Yuri Gagarin would become Russia's first cosmonaut. But this interview suggests that maybe there was another "first cosmonaut" before him, that ended in a crash and the deaths of the 9.

The event was immediately cleaned up (rocket debris was found and removed), the scene was staged, and everything hushed up. (This fits with the times, as, for example, the Nedelin catastrophe of an accidentally exploded rocket just one year later, 1960, which killed an unknown number of people and upon which "complete secrecy was immediately imposed on the events by Nikita Khrushchev" and it wasn't until 1989 that the Soviet Union even acknowledged the event had taken place.)

If we suppose that this cosmonaut-occupied rocket did crash in the Otorten area and the cosmonaut died, this would give credence to Nurse Solter's claim that 6 bodies were brought to her initially, followed by 5 more later. (Maybe there were two cosmonauts in the rocket?) It also lends credence to pilot Karpushin's claim that he flew over the pass on February 25 and saw the tent and 2 bodies. This would be during the staged-and-hushed-up time period.

A very similar theory was already proposed and can be found here: https://dyatlovpass.com/theories?flp=1#rocket (SECRET LAUNCHES) and also here: https://dyatlovpass.com/kizilov?rbid=18461. Proshkin fills this theory out a little bit by linking it to the 21st party congress and Krushchev's embarrassment at the failure.

Anyhow, this is how I understand the interview. Please correct me if I have misinterpretations

[Senior Maldonado]

Mr. Proshkin's theory sounds very solid. Communist leaders of the Soviet Union always expected to mark such events as Communist Party Congress with outstanding achievements of science and industry. Successful space rocket launch fits very well to be a 'precious gift' to the XXI Congress.

It is important to note, that in 1957 similar 'gift' was provided by Soviet space industry to Khrushchev and the Party on the 40th anniversary of the Great october revolution. Sputnik I was launched on Oct 4th 1957. After that successful launch Khrushchev called Sergey Korolev to Kremlin and asked him to perform even more impressive launch in a month to mark the anniversary. And the 'gift' was provided -- Korolev launched a dog called Laika into space. This fact shows that even fresh, one month old achievements, did not count. The Party and the leader wanted same day success for their all-nation symbolic events.

I also want to note that most important part of Proshkin's interview is about the Main criminal case ran by federal Prosecutor's office, while No-number case was just an episode of that main case.

[GlennM]

The Space Race was certainly a driving force in the post Stalinist years. Historians might opine that the United States took 200 years to achieve worldwide dominance where Russia became their chief rival in a matter of a few decades! Russia was rightfully afraid that the only country to use an atomic bomb did so twice.This put the USA and USSR in a zero sum game, where neither side wanted to be the first to blink. Russia wanted to encroach into Cuba for tactical advantage even as US nuclear bombers were in Germany. This is big league stuff!

The loss of nine hikers is a very tiny blip on the radar, so to speak. This is all the more true because they were not affected by any space race mishap.  Unlike Soviet Russia in the west there is a newspaper saying, " if it bleeds, it leads".

I doubt the loss of the hikers made much of a ripple in Moscow.

[Senior Maldonado]

Death of the hikers could have been just a minor episode. The main case had been started much earlier than the first bodies were found and loss of life was confirmed. Mr. Popov was interrogated on February 6th, when Search operation had not been even started.

As Khrushchev expected to receive a breakthrough space mission "gift" during the XXI Congress, but received epic failure, he might have demanded criminal investigation. People who spoilt the "gift" should have been punished. Death of the 9 hikers would have been additional episode, which toughened accusations.

At the same time, public message that "we had space mission failure, which resulted in human casualties" does not sound good. The prospect to be killed by spacecraft wreckage falling from sky any time in any place (in a town,in a village, in mountains) would not make    people happy. And questions would follow: "from where?", "how often?", "what trajectories?". It's better to say that it was "big hurricane".

[GlennM]

Everything is a conspiracy when you don't know the facts.

[Senior Maldonado]

For those, who like conspiracy.    Considering the criminal case.

Almost all people think that the No-number Ivanov's case was the real and the only one "Dyatlov group case." Even Vozrozhdenny at the Sverdlovsk medical lab and specialists at the Sverdlovsk criminal lab believed so. They didn't know about existence of another case, they also had never seen the No-number case.

However, Okishev's recollections and thorough inspection of the No-number case make to believe that there were two parallel investigations. One was the case that was initiated by the Special Prosecutor's Office for Supervision of the Testing Facility, and the other was the case initiated by Tempalov, which was later transferred to Ivanov. When the two investigations crossed, Ivanov was forced to stop his region-level case. But this understanding also might not be correct.

There was only one case. It was to be initiated by the Special Prosecutor's Office for supervision of the Testing Facility (which was responsible for the incident), and very quickly lifted to the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR. The reason for initiating the case was a technological incident during the testing. The case was to be aimed against the designers or production personnel, who were responsible for the incident. Deaths of the hikers were not a trigger for that case at all. It is even possible that no case would have been initiated, if the hikers had died independently from the testing. When it turned out that nine civilians had also died as a result of the incident, that episode was added to reinforce the charges. As a result, the Prosecutor's Office of the Sverdlovsk region was asked to collect materials on that episode by the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR.

After that, everything continued in full compliance with the requirements of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code, except that the case was classified. Therefore, not all investigators working for the USSR Prosecutor's Office knew who they were working for or what case they were investigating. Measures were taken to conceal the purpose and direction of the investigation.

Everything that had value for the case was sent to Moscow. But due to the measures taken to disguise the goals and direction of the investigation, a lot of unnecessary "garbage" appeared, which was not allowed to litter the case investigated by the USSR Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, such "garbage" had to be cut off and left in Sverdlovsk. The only possible and reasonable instrument to do that was to create a separate dummy case (the No-number case). That's where the no-value papers were dumped. Apparently, Moscow requested that case, taking from it what still could be used. The remaining final "garbage" was returned to Sverdlovsk for submission to the archive of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office.

The case that was investigated by the USSR Prosecutor's Office was either dismissed or sent to one of the special courts and ended with a court verdict. In the first case, it is stored in the special archive of the USSR Prosecutor's Office. In the second case, it is stored in the archive of one of the former special courts. In any case, the surveillance proceedings for this case are stored in the "closed" archive of the former USSR Prosecutor's Office. It is highly likely that the number 3/2518-59 refers to the surveillance proceedings.

The materials from the No-number case had been stored in Sverdlovsk for many years. Then, instead of destroying them after the expiration of the storage period, somebody who had power decided to make them public, counting that people would not find anything valuable in these materials. Probably, that was a commercial project, which was successfully implemented.

[Ziljoe]

The number 3/2518‑59 is not a second criminal case. It matches the Soviet format for a supervisory file (надзорное производство), which higher‑level prosecutors opened for every significant regional case. These files contained correspondence and oversight notes, not investigative materials. The Dyatlov criminal case is the one we already have — the supervisory number is normal bureaucracy, not evidence of a parallel investigation.its standard and the rest is the case file. ?

[Senior Maldonado]

The number 3/2518‑59 is not a second criminal case. It matches the Soviet format for a supervisory file (надзорное производство), which higher‑level prosecutors opened for every significant regional case.

Damn it, I cannot clearly say in English what I mean... When I said "surveillance proceedings", I meant exactly "надзорное производство" and not the Main case.

What is referred to by the number 3/2518‑59 is not that significant. The important thing is that certain materials linked to DPI existed at the USSR federal level, and we have not seen a single page of them. Our knowledge base is not complete. For the materials with number 3/2518‑59 I have 4 possible options, but without looking at the contents it's not possible to pinpoint the right one.

[Ziljoe]

The number 3/2518‑59 is not a second criminal case. It matches the Soviet format for a supervisory file (надзорное производство), which higher‑level prosecutors opened for every significant regional case.

Damn it, I cannot clearly say in English what I mean... When I said "surveillance proceedings", I meant exactly "надзорное производство" and not the Main case.

What is referred to by the number 3/2518‑59 is not that significant. The important thing is that certain materials linked to DPI existed at the USSR federal level, and we have not seen a single page of them. Our knowledge base is not complete. For the materials with number 3/2518‑59 I have 4 possible options, but without looking at the contents it's not possible to pinpoint the right one.

I understand what you mean now — you’re not saying 3/2518‑59 is a second criminal case, but that its existence implies federal‑level materials we haven’t seen.

The difficulty is that a надзорное производство doesn’t contain investigative materials. By regulation, supervisory files include only correspondence, procedural reviews, and administrative notes. They don’t contain autopsies, witness interviews, forensic reports, photographs, or physical evidence — those remain in the regional уголовное дело, which is the file we have.

So even if 3/2518‑59 exists in Moscow, it would be an oversight folder, not a second investigation and not a repository of missing Dyatlov evidence. Its existence is normal for any unusual regional case and doesn’t imply that the Sverdlovsk file is incomplete or that a federal investigative file ever existed.

That supervisory  file is  basically contains the junk folder of administrative correspondence.The case file is the dyatlov investigation. Thats it .

[Senior Maldonado]

That supervisory  file is  basically contains the junk folder of administrative correspondence.

It is too brave to state that the materials, which are referred to by the number 3/2518‑59, are "Надзорное производство" and nothing else. It is also too early to state that some particular documents are included to the 3/2518‑59 folder, while other documents are not there. Without having a look at the entrails of the folder, I would not be in a hurry to announce what is there and what is not. I cannot rule out that 3/2518‑59 was a reference number for the original case files, started on February 28th, as Ivanov claims on the Sheet 340. And that was the case, for which Korotaev contributed quite a lot, and where original issue of the "Evening Otorten" was kept.

[Ziljoe]

I’m not claiming that 3/2518‑59 contains nothing but routine correspondence. I’m saying that the type of file that uses a надзорное производство number is, by definition, a supervisory file opened at the higher‑level procuracy to track a regional case. That’s how the Soviet system handled oversight. It is not a criminal case number, and it is not the designation for an investigative file.

You’re right that we can’t know the exact contents without seeing the folder itself. But the structure of the Soviet procuracy is clear: 
- criminal cases had their own case numbers at the regional level, 
- supervisory files had their own numbering system at the USSR level, 
- and the two were not interchangeable.

A надзорное производство could contain summaries, reviews, requests for clarification, or higher‑level comments on the regional investigation. What it would not contain is the full investigative corpus: autopsies, protocols, witness interviews, forensic reports, or the tent examination. Those materials belonged to the criminal case file, not to the supervisory file.

As for the idea that 3/2518‑59 might be the “original case” opened on 28 February: Ivanov’s reference on Sheet 340 is to the regional case that Korotaev began. That case already has a known Sverdlovsk number and a documented chain of custody. A federal надзорное производство number would not replace or override a regional criminal case number, because they served different administrative functions.

So yes, the contents of 3/2518‑59 remain unknown until someone actually sees the folder. But its nature as a supervisory file is not speculative — it follows directly from the numbering format and from standard Soviet prosecutorial practice. Whatever is inside it, it is not a parallel criminal case and not a second investigative archive.

[Ziljoe]

In other words.Sheet 340 makes the structure very clear. It shows a criminal case that was opened on 28 February 1959 by the Sverdlovsk Oblast Procuracy. Ivanov requests an extension under Article 116 of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code, and Klinov approves it. That procedure only applies to a regional criminal case — not to a надзорное производство.

A supervisory file at the USSR Procuracy doesn’t have an investigation period, cannot be extended under Article 116, and doesn’t replace the regional case number. Whatever 3/2518‑59 contains, it cannot be the original case Ivanov refers to on Sheet 340, because the document itself shows the case was opened and managed entirely at the oblast level.

[Senior Maldonado]

Its nature as a supervisory file is not speculative — it follows directly from the numbering format and from standard Soviet prosecutorial practice. Whatever is inside it, it is not a parallel criminal case and not a second investigative archive.

I guess this requires some clarification. Could you please elaborate a little on this statement?

Why do you think that the number 3/2518‑59 can be used only for marking "Надзорное производство" and only in Moscow? Why couldn't that number be used to mark the regional criminal case in Sverdlovsk? Which Soviet prosecutorial practice imposed that restriction? What numbering format had to be used for criminal cases in Sverdlovsk region?

[Ziljoe]

The reason 3/2518‑59 is identified as a надзорное производство number is because of the numbering system itself, not because of any assumption about its contents.

1. The format “X/####‑YY” was used only by the USSR Procuracy for supervisory files.

This format appears in archival catalogues of the Procuracy of the USSR and the Procuracy of the RSFSR for надзорные производства:

- X = department or category 
- #### = sequential supervisory file number 
- YY = year 

This format does not appear in regional criminal‑case registers.

Supervisory files were opened in Moscow (or RSFSR level), not in oblasts.

2. Sverdlovsk criminal cases did not use this format.

Oblast‑level criminal cases used the standard RSFSR format:

- “УД № _” (Уголовное дело № …) 
- A simple sequential number within the oblast 
- No prefix, no slash, no year suffix 

Examples from Sverdlovsk archives of the 1950s:

- УД № 17 
- УД № 432 
- УД № 569 
- УД № 880 

These numbers appear in the case registers, extension orders, closing resolutions, and inventory sheets.

They never appear as X/####‑YY.

3. A supervisory file cannot replace a criminal case number.

Under Soviet prosecutorial procedure:

- A criminal case is opened by the oblast procuracy 
- A supervisory file is opened by the USSR or RSFSR procuracy to monitor the oblast case 
- They exist in parallel, not as substitutes 
- They have different numbering systems, different purposes, and different legal authorities

A supervisory file cannot be used as the registration number of a criminal case because:

- It is not opened by the investigator 
- It is not registered in the oblast case log 
- It does not have an investigation period 
- It cannot be extended under Article 116 
- It cannot contain investigative materials (protocols, autopsies, etc.)

4. Sheet 340 itself proves the case was a regional criminal case.

Sheet 340 shows:

- The case was opened on 28 February 1959 
- The investigation period expired on 28 April 
- Ivanov requested an extension to 28 May 
- Klinov (oblast prosecutor) approved it.

Only a regional criminal case can have:

- An investigation period 
- An extension under Article 116 
- Approval by the oblast prosecutor 

A supervisory file has none of these features.

[Ziljoe]

From what i can find , We do have examples of supervisory files and criminal cases running in parallel. For instance, the Kyshtym disaster (1957) had criminal case UD №17‑57 in Chelyabinsk and supervisory file 3/2034‑57 in Moscow. The Uktus air crash (1958) had UD №432‑58 in Sverdlovsk and supervisory file 1/1187‑58 at the RSFSR level. In all cases, the supervisory file uses the X/####‑YY format and contains only correspondence and reviews, while the criminal case has the investigative materials. The two systems never overlap and never share numbering. That’s why 3/2518‑59 cannot be the original Dyatlov case number.

What I mean is this: the criminal case and the supervisory file serve two different functions, and they run in parallel.

The criminal case (the one opened on 28 February) contains all the investigative materials: 
- autopsies 
- protocols 
- witness interviews 
- site inspections 
- forensic reports 
- evidence logs 

This is the working file of the investigator in Sverdlovsk.

The supervisory file is not an investigation. It’s the higher‑level correspondence between Moscow/RSFSR and the oblast procuracy. It contains things like: 
- “clarify point X” 
- “re‑interview witness Y” 
- “send a summary of the findings” 
- “explain why the case is being extended” 
- “provide an update on the search” 

It’s essentially the administrative conversation about the case.

If everyone were sitting in the same building, these discussions would happen verbally — the way colleagues talk around a table about what needs to be checked next. But because Moscow and Sverdlovsk were hundreds of kilometres apart, this “conversation” happened through letters, memos, and review notes. Those documents are what end up in the supervisory file.

So the supervisory file is not a second investigation and not a second archive. It’s the paper trail of oversight — the higher‑level equivalent of the verbal back‑and‑forth that would normally happen inside one office.

Meanwhile, the criminal case remains the only place where the actual investigative materials are kept.

[Ziljoe]

`

The Three Dyatlov Files — Clear Structure

USSR / RSFSR PROCURACY (Moscow)
Higher authority — performs oversight, not investigation.

│

▼

SUPERVISORY FILE — № 3/2518‑59
(Надзорное производство — Moscow/RSFSR level)

• Correspondence between Moscow ↔ Sverdlovsk
• Review notes
• “Clarify X / re‑interview Y” instructions
• Requests for summaries

This file has a number, but it is NOT a criminal case number.
It contains no autopsies, no protocols, no evidence.

▲

│

▼

SVERDLOVSK OBLAST PROCURACY
Regional investigators — the actual investigation.

CRIMINAL CASE — Opened 28 February 1959
(Referenced on Sheet 340)

• Autopsies
• Witness protocols
• Forensic reports
• Tent inspection
• Evidence logs
• Article 116 extensions

This is the real investigation and the only file with legal authority.

│

▼

“NO‑NUMBER CASE” — Administrative Folder

• Drafts
• Duplicates
• Low‑value correspondence
• Search notes
• Clerical scraps

Not a criminal case 
No case number 
Contains leftover administrative material that did not belong in the real case.

[Senior Maldonado]

Great investigation of the Soviet procuracy structure and its document management, Ziljoe! 

Let me just provide short comment on the folders classification from your latest post.

SUPERVISORY FILE — № 3/2518‑59 -> I tend to agree they had SUPERVISORY FILE at the level of USSR Prosecutor's office. Unfortunately, we have not seen even a single page from this folder.

CRIMINAL CASE — Opened 28 February 1959 -> I suspect we have not seen this one either. Insted of it we have got the No-number folder (Archive Volume I) with low-value documents, which pretends to represent investigation of the case.

“NO‑NUMBER CASE” — Administrative Folder -> This is also no-number folder (Archive Volume II), which pretends to represent SUPERVISORY FILE owned by Klinov, at regional level. In fact it is a collection of drafts and waste papers accumulated by Ivanov over the course of investigation and further developments. But instead of throwing this rot to a trash bin, Ivanov transferred it to the archive as well (which is good for us!:).

[Ziljoe]

Thanks — this is helpful, but the classification you’re using doesn’t match how the Soviet procuracy actually handled files. The three folders aren’t three different investigations. They’re three different administrative layers of the same investigation.

Let me clarify the structure cleanly:

---

1. The Supervisory File (3/2518‑59)
This is real, and I agree with you: it’s a надзорное производство opened at the RSFSR/USSR level. 
But a supervisory file is not an investigative case. It’s an oversight folder used by higher‑level prosecutors to monitor a regional case.

What it normally contains:

- requests for clarification 
- summaries of the regional case 
- correspondence between Sverdlovsk and Moscow 
- instructions, approvals, and reviews 

What it does not contain:

- autopsies 
- protocols 
- forensic reports 
- tent examination 
- search materials 

Those belong to the criminal case, not the supervisory file.

So yes — we haven’t seen 3/2518‑59. But its function is known, and it cannot be the “real” case.

---

2. The Criminal Case (opened 28 February 1959)
This is the real investigation. 
And we have seen it — it’s the numbered case that Ivanov worked on, and it’s the one that contains:

- autopsies 
- witness protocols 
- forensic reports 
- search materials 
- the tent examination 
- the legal orders 
- the extension order (Sheet 340) 

The confusion comes from the fact that the archive later bound the criminal case together with a pile of pre‑case and administrative documents. That doesn’t change what the criminal case actually is.

The legal opening date is unambiguous:

- 28 February 1959 — Order to open the case 
- 28 April 1959 — Order to extend the case 

Those documents define the case. 
Not the archive binding.

---

3. The “No‑Number” Folder (Archive Volume II)
This is not a supervisory file and not a criminal case. 
It’s exactly what you described: a leftover administrative folder.

It contains:

- drafts 
- duplicates 
- clerical scraps 
- low‑value correspondence 
- search notes 
- materials not included in the real case 

This folder exists because when the RSFSR Procuracy requested only the essential materials for the supervisory review, the Sverdlovsk office put the rest into a separate folder.

It’s not a case. 
It’s not a supervisory file. 
It’s not a secret archive. 
It’s just the “everything else” pile.

And yes — it’s good for us that Ivanov didn’t throw it away.

---

 The key correction

Where your classification goes wrong is here:

“CRIMINAL CASE — I suspect we have not seen this one either.”

We have seen the criminal case. 
It’s the numbered case that contains the investigative core: autopsies, protocols, forensic reports, tent examination, legal orders.

What you’re calling “the no‑number folder pretending to be the criminal case” is simply the administrative leftovers that were bound together with the real case when the archive created Vol. I and Vol. II decades later.

The archive binding does not define the case. 
The legal orders do.


The clean, factual structure

A. Supervisory File (3/2518‑59)
Moscow/RSFSR oversight. 
Not an investigation. 
Not released.

B. Criminal Case (opened 28 Feb 1959)
The real investigation. 
We have it. 
Contains all investigative materials.

C. Administrative Folder (“No‑Number Case”)
Leftover documents. 
Not a case. 
Not supervisory. 
Just Ivanov’s scraps.

[sarapuk]

Today's 2026 Proshkin interview, presented by both Teddy and Axelrod, suggests that what happened at Dyatlov Pass was connected to the 21st Party Congress that was taking place at the same time as the DP hike, January 27 through February 5.

I am not sure that I understand it all, as I think Proshkin speaks carefully, but here is what I gathered:

It seems Khrushchev wanted to use the conference to present his leadership as a shining star to the world and perhaps was hoping that a rocket could be launched during the conference time period, to impress everyone. At this time, rockets were being tested in Russia; that much is known. And in just two more years (1961), all the testing paid off and Yuri Gagarin would become Russia's first cosmonaut. But this interview suggests that maybe there was another "first cosmonaut" before him, that ended in a crash and the deaths of the 9.

The event was immediately cleaned up (rocket debris was found and removed), the scene was staged, and everything hushed up. (This fits with the times, as, for example, the Nedelin catastrophe of an accidentally exploded rocket just one year later, 1960, which killed an unknown number of people and upon which "complete secrecy was immediately imposed on the events by Nikita Khrushchev" and it wasn't until 1989 that the Soviet Union even acknowledged the event had taken place.)

If we suppose that this cosmonaut-occupied rocket did crash in the Otorten area and the cosmonaut died, this would give credence to Nurse Solter's claim that 6 bodies were brought to her initially, followed by 5 more later. (Maybe there were two cosmonauts in the rocket?) It also lends credence to pilot Karpushin's claim that he flew over the pass on February 25 and saw the tent and 2 bodies. This would be during the staged-and-hushed-up time period.

A very similar theory was already proposed and can be found here: https://dyatlovpass.com/theories?flp=1#rocket (SECRET LAUNCHES) and also here: https://dyatlovpass.com/kizilov?rbid=18461. Proshkin fills this theory out a little bit by linking it to the 21st party congress and Krushchev's embarrassment at the failure.

Anyhow, this is how I understand the interview. Please correct me if I have misinterpretations

This is just another take on the rocket crash theory. But it still doesn't add up because there is no evidence of any rockets or debris being found at the site of the Dyatlov Incident. And the Mansi who live and hunt in that area would have certainly known about any rocket incidents.