July 22, 2024, 04:41:39 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Camera found on Zolotaryov's body may actually be Thibeaux-Brignolle's camera  (Read 13195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 19, 2021, 11:46:51 AM
Read 13195 times


Don't know if this has been brought up before, but here is my thesis:

Lets start with the facts:

1. There is a roll of film of an unknown shooter, but it is believed to be that of Thibeaux-Brignolle:

2. This roll of film wasn't inside a camera but inside the groups common bag of stuff.
3. It is therefore currently assumed that Thibeaux-Brignolle had a camera, but it got lost or not registered as evidence.
4. A camera, identified as Zolotaryov's with a nearly full film of images taken before the expedition was found in the tent. He didn't use that camera on this trek.
5. Zolotaryov was also found with a camera around his neck, the film got severely damaged.

I propose that this camera was actually that of Thibeaux-Brignolle.

  • Why would Zolotaryov bring two cameras on the trip but never use them? I suggest he only brought the one in the tent but didn't use it because the film was already full and he didn't bring any extras.
  • Thibeaux-Brignolle was a jokester and liked to be photographed. He quickly made friends with Zolotaryov and they took some pictures of each other.

  • Frame no. 10 was not a disgruntled or tired Zolotaryov, but actually his attempt to strike a pose. Back then it was still more common, esp. with older people to keep a stern look when being photographed.
  • Zolotaryov was using the camera from Frame No 11 onwards. Some pictures are blurry because he didn't know how to operate it in the beginning.
  • The Film was changed after these pictures. Maybe Thibeaux-Brignolle was showing Zolotaryov how to do it.
  • It is assumed that Thibeaux-Brignolle and Zolotaryov were outside together on the evening of 1st February, because they had shoes on. This may also be a clue that they had become friends.
  • Zolotaryov still had the camera on his person when the disaster struck.

Now for some more out there stuff, which I don't really believe in but it would fit well into this theory:

  • Frame No. 17 was also taken by Zolotaryov (still unsure how to focus) and really shows (at least what he believed) to be a Yeti
  • It wasn't noticed by anybody else and nobody believed him
  • He couldn't prove his sighting until the film was developed
  • Zolotaryov immediately asked for a fresh film so he could take many pictures when he saw it again
  • Thibeaux-Brignolle let him keep the camera for the time being because he felt Zolotaryov was really worried about this
  • On the fateful evening, the group made fun of Zolotaryov, writing that famous line in the Evening Otorten

  • Later, maybe they heard a noise and Zolotaryov wanted to investigate, maybe Thibeaux-Brignolle just asked him to step outside to discuss the matter because Zolotaryov was angry that nobody believed him
  • Then the disaster struck (in this case, maybe the Yeti)

This could explain the cameras, frame No. 17, why that film only contained 17 pictures (but was unloaded from the camera) and why they made the joke about the Yeti in the Newsletter. Of course believing that he really saw a Yeti is pretty wild. Maybe he actually photographed the Mansi Hunter but believed he was a Yeti. In that case the disaster could have been the Mansi or something entirely unrelated.

The damaged film could of course shed some light on this. Does anybody know if there are scans of the entire film roll and not just these enlarged areas shown here?

« Last Edit: August 19, 2021, 12:03:57 PM by Zozzle »

August 24, 2021, 08:31:38 PM
Reply #1


I’m not 100% sure, but I think what’s there is what they have managed to save from the camera they found on Zolotaryov’s body.

Personally I think it’s more likely that the camera is Tibo’s than that it is an unidentified camera that wasn’t found. The person who did the analysis on the website argued against it, but I find his arguments to be more of hand-waving away the evidence than persuasive proof. He’s trying to push a certain theory and so the supposed murderers took the camera. Why they didn’t take the other cameras or film, I wasn’t invested enough in his theory to find out.

Of course, the question comes up as to why Zolotaryov took it on that fateful night with a whatever it was bearing down on them. As you mentioned, several investigators believe that Tibo and Zolotaryov were outside the tent, which means they may have likely been the first to realize that something out of the ordinary was happening. There’s always been something of a puzzle with the flashlights, like the one on the tent and then there was supposed to be one with a dead battery. What Zolotaryov could have done, if he didn’t have a working flashlight, is grab the camera and use the flash to see what was going on. One of the pictures in the damaged film does show a bright flash with what looks to be the heads of three people at the bottom. Some use the photograph to bolster the UFO or rocket theory. I wouldn’t go that far because it could simply be overexposure. However, the most logical explanation, in my mind, is that he took a picture of the slope or sky above them to see what was going on, and, of course, he would still have had the camera with him when he and the others left the tent.

I don’t believe in Bigfoot, but I honestly have a hard time wondering why anyone would use that picture to argue the existence of Bigfoot. I have seen plenty of other pictures that look way more authentic. For one thing, there’s a hard line at the figure’s waist. So either Bigfoot only has fur from the waist down or his fur abruptly changes to a darker shade at his waist and heading downwards, or he’s wearing clothes where his trousers are a darker shade than the jacket he’s wearing …you know, like Tibo! Maybe he stole Tibo’s clothes. Also, he must have stolen Tibo’s skis as well, because there is a definite ski track going from the photographer right to the figure. Nice to know Bigfoot figured out how to ski.

Joking aside, I know the figure looks beefier than Tibo, but I’ve been hanging around conspiracy theories long enough and trying to figure out why a black dog would kill Kennedy and whether that’s the Loch Ness monster or a kid’s bath toy to know that you can’t always trust the proportions in a photograph, especially from an older camera. And some of the beefiness is definitely being caused by the fuzziness of the picture. I think it is more likely that Zolotaryov and Tibo might have been playing a joke on the other team members by staging this scene to look like a Bigfoot sighting. They were the fun-loving ones. That being the case, they could have even done something to make Tibo look more ape-shaped, like maybe stuffing clothes under his jacket or him putting on more layers of clothing.

I don’t know that I would have the talent to do it, but if you have certain information about the camera found on Zolotaryov, like focal lens and what not, you can figure the size of objects in the photograph, as well the photographer. Of course, that would only mean that it was the camera on Zolotaryov or a camera that had the same specifications. However, one good thing about Zolotaryov is that he was quite a bit taller than all the others, with the exception of Doroshenko. So having the camera specifications and putting in the calculations, if it turned out to be a large person, it could only be Zolotaryov, Doronshenko, or one of the others standing on something, like a tree stump. Probably, with at least one of the pictures, you could narrow it down even further just by the surroundings and the placement of other people in the group
« Last Edit: August 24, 2021, 08:38:50 PM by WinterLeia »

August 25, 2021, 01:33:51 AM
Reply #2


Yeah, I think the more likely explanation for Frame No. 17 is that it's just one of the hikers and maybe the photographer, looking through the viewfinder and seeing the out of focus person (just like in the picture) commented that it kinda looks like a Yeti. They all had a good laugh about it and that's why they made the joke in the Evening Otorten.

What I don't understand is why everyone seems to assume that Thibeaux-Brignolle must have had an extra camera that went missing. Why shouldn't it be that camera found on Zolotaryov's body? For all that matters the roll of film could have been taken with one of the other cameras as well, depending on the chronology of the pictures.

As for the "three heads picture", that has been disproven here:


See Post No. 50.

The three heads picture isn't even from the camera found on Zolotaryov's body, it's actually just a magnified cutout of frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera.

Because of this I'm very skeptical that any of the alleged pictures presented here are actually from the camera on Zolotaryov's body.


August 25, 2021, 06:11:28 AM
Reply #3


Thanks for pointing that post out. I never thought it would be much help in figuring out what happened anyway. I think the whole thing with the cameras is that Yuri Yudin was surprised that Zolotaryov’s body was found with a camera. He thought the group only had four cameras, but it’s not exactly sinister to me that he didn’t know about Zolotaryov’s camera, as the roll of film had been used up and he had no extra film rolls (evidently), so he was certainly not going to be taking pictures with it. So, obviously, a fifth camera would be a shock to Yuri, but that in itself doesn’t identify the owners of the found cameras. I know the question comes up as to why Zolotaryov would take his camera in the first place, but sometimes I think the way the story ended tends to blind us to more mundane explanations. He could have simply forgot he had used up the entire roll and didn’t bring any new rolls. He was a late addition to the group anyway, and even Zina said they forgot stuff, and the others would have had more time to plan. I do find it intriguing that he took the camera that night. People normally don’t do that if they’re going out simply to take a leak, especially in the bitter cold after the sun went down. The other option is that he went out, but then came back for it, in the middle of an avalanche or a windstorm or an alien attack (fill in the blank with whatever theory you subscribe to). There may be a mundane explanation for him doing that also, but it’s harder to think of one in that situation.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2021, 06:28:46 AM by WinterLeia »

February 13, 2022, 07:50:26 AM
Reply #4


Frame17 is understood by looking at frame 16, I think.
We don't have to say everything that comes into our head.

February 13, 2022, 05:15:58 PM
Reply #5


Frame17 is understood by looking at frame 16, I think.
So, you mean that Frame 17 is a photo of Thibeaux-Brignolles?  I agree that's probably the case.