Factual Information > Video / Photography
Zolotaryov's camera
cz:
Hi Jakub,
You definitely tortured the photos exactly as you promised. Kudos to your effort.
Is your working hypothesis that the bright spot shows a fire (or some light at least) with two bodies around and a possible additional bystander a bit further away? At least this is what it seems to me. This is for sure an interpretation, I have not seen so far. It will remain hard to establish a unique reading. Unfortunately, I am unable to dig out the original analysis by Yakimenko (which I did see at some point), but what is shown in these pictures is a really small fraction of the film.
As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.
Cheers, CZ
Jakub Firlej:
--- Quote from: cz on December 29, 2020, 03:13:54 PM ---Hi Jakub,
You definitely tortured the photos exactly as you promised. Kudos to your effort.
Is your working hypothesis that the bright spot shows a fire (or some light at least) with two bodies around and a possible additional bystander a bit further away? At least this is what it seems to me. This is for sure an interpretation, I have not seen so far. It will remain hard to establish a unique reading. Unfortunately, I am unable to dig out the original analysis by Yakimenko (which I did see at some point), but what is shown in these pictures is a really small fraction of the film.
As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.
Cheers, CZ
--- End quote ---
Hi.
I try not to interpret it. I want to see as much content as possible. If it denies imposing the interpretation, it will also be ok. It's good too. I'd rather see a piece of truth than prove the interpretation.
I will also torture the photos you are talking about. I only have little time for this. Unfortunately, my duties are first.
Greetings.
cz:
--- Quote from: Jakub Firlej on December 30, 2020, 01:20:11 AM ---
I try not to interpret it. I want to see as much content as possible. If it denies imposing the interpretation, it will also be ok. It's good too. I'd rather see a piece of truth than prove the interpretation.
I will also torture the photos you are talking about. I only have little time for this. Unfortunately, my duties are first.
Greetings.
--- End quote ---
Hi Jakub,
Sounds like an impartial science-like approach you follow. Very nice!
I am looking forward to your analysis, because I have seen "everything and nothing" in these images. However, this case has remained unsolved for 60 years, so it can certainly wait a bit longer. No hurry...
Cheers
Jakub Firlej:
--- Quote from: cz on December 29, 2020, 03:13:54 PM ---
As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.
Cheers, CZ
--- End quote ---
Sorry. I have a lot of responsibilities recently. There is a problem with eagles 1 and 2. The light source blinds the camera. I can't see anything but the source. I will torture it again. Only now I have little time.
Greetings
cz:
--- Quote from: Jakub Firlej on January 13, 2021, 09:26:33 AM ---
Sorry. I have a lot of responsibilities recently.
--- End quote ---
Hi,
Please do not feel obliged in any way. This is all for fun and curiosity.
--- Quote from: Jakub Firlej on January 13, 2021, 09:26:33 AM ---
There is a problem with eagles 1 and 2. The light source blinds the camera. I can't see anything but the source. I will torture it again. Only now I have little time.
--- End quote ---
You are of course right. What strikes me about the "eagle" lights is that they are not round. If it were a moderately distant light source such as a flashlight, I would have expected that. Maybe it is two lights merging in the overexposed ellipse.
This "structure" under the lights is often described as resembling the trunk of a tree. If it were really so, the perspective of the photographer must have been a curious one, however. What I find interesting is that this structure is actually quite similar in both pictures. One can superimpose them after a bit of adaption and see this (more information). Assuming that it is a real picture (and not some remnant) more or less the same thing is shown twice. This is the only such example among the photos attributed to Zolotaryov. The photographer saw something, which he considered important enough to photograph two times. I wonder whether your magic can shed more light on how this thing looks and, ultimately, of course what this is.
Cheers, CZ
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version