Dyatlov Pass Forum

Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Marley on May 28, 2020, 08:59:13 AM

Title: Photographs
Post by: Marley on May 28, 2020, 08:59:13 AM

There are a number of photographs that may shed a light on what happened to the Dyatlov group.

The first, and easiest is Zolotaryov’s “Three heads” picture. It is the last proper photograph he took. Unfortunately we only have a low quality image. It comes across as a scan of a photocopy of a print, so we may be missing a lot of detail. But it’s unmistakably a photo of a bright object in the upper left corner. It doesn’t look like a technical failure because of its very recognizable round shape. Light leaks usually appear as streaks or bursts, sometimes as a fog covering the whole picture. They don’t take on a circular shape. One look at the negative can decide this question once and for all. If the edge (with the sprocket holes) is exposed, it’s a leak. If not, it’s a photograph. Personally I’m quite certain it is an actual photo.

(https://i.ibb.co/80kBMHc/Zolotaryov-three-heads.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)


But I’m not convinced that the three thingies at the bottom are heads. Actually, they don’t look like human heads at all. So I took it upon myself to enhance this part of the photograph to see if I could find some better explanation. And look:

(https://i.ibb.co/St06v66/heads.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

They’re shrub heads!  tongue2


This is obviously a cut out from a Dyatlov Pass photo on this site:

(https://i.ibb.co/ryPFmGD/Dyatlov-pass-contemporary-009-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j4KbTvn)


The resemblance is uncanny. If these thingies are indeed backlit shrubs Zolotaryov must have taken this picture uphill. That would be to the Northwest to West of the tent, if I’m not mistaken.
This makes me wonder. All Dyatlov treks I’ve read about stay on the east side of the Otorten-Kholat Syakhl range. Do people sometimes visit the western slopes/valleys, oblast Komi? Because if this really is a picture of a missile/warhead/detonation it’s possible that the answer/debris is on the other side of the mountain. Hm.


(https://i.ibb.co/0cN6Z6Q/map2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vH5TmTD)

Oh wow, I thought this one was going to be a walk in the park. I’ll save my musings on the other photographs for later.


Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 28, 2020, 09:13:35 AM
Question: do we know approximately when was this picture taken ? Because if it's the first of the pictures from Zorotalyov's camera, it may come from a different day...
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 28, 2020, 09:30:57 AM
No we don't.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 28, 2020, 09:31:45 AM
But it is the first picture from his camera, i.e. first shoot ?
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 28, 2020, 09:41:36 AM
None of this is a full shot or in order. These are very small fragments of a film roll that is horribly damaged. Maybe only the "three heads" is a little closer to a full shot but nobody knows if it is first in the roll.
https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera
Scroll to the point where it says:
"Please note that the images above, besides the first frame, are very small fragments of the actual photo. You can scale by the procket holes visible on scans 2 and 6."
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 28, 2020, 09:59:54 AM
Excellent thread. I've always considered the Plane2 photo (if real) to be pointing west or north west.
But do these shrubs grow so high there?
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 28, 2020, 10:32:16 AM
None of this is a full shot or in order. These are very small fragments of a film roll that is horribly damaged. Maybe only the "three heads" is a little closer to a full shot but nobody knows if it is first in the roll.
https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera
Scroll to the point where it says:
"Please note that the images above, besides the first frame, are very small fragments of the actual photo. You can scale by the procket holes visible on scans 2 and 6."
Who has the original film then ?
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 28, 2020, 11:07:28 AM
Who has the original film then ?

There is no chain of custody for the films of Dyatlov group in general. On this page when you click on the links in the bullets, you will see the films that are available.
https://dyatlovpass.com/cameras
I am more interested in where did these come from. No one has seen the negatives.
https://dyatlovpass.com/loose-photos

As for the Zolotaryov's camera: Valentin Yakimenko, who was a fellow student to the Dyatlov group and a member of the rescue team, presented the scans of Zolotaryov camera, no negatives, for first time in 2015 at the annual Dyatlov Conference in UPI now Ural Federal University .
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: sparrow on May 29, 2020, 02:38:29 AM
I have wondered if the photo of Simon was staged.  If the bodies had thawed out pretty much by the time that they were pulled out of the creek,then Simon could not have been holding a pen(cil) and notebook. They certainly would have fallen away upon removal. I have heard some say that they were thawed out because how could rodents, etc. have eaten away so much of the faces if they were frozen solid.  Also, how could Simon have held a pen(cil) to write, when his hands were surely (almost) frozen?  If they died in the den and were  washed to where they were found, how is it Simon didn't lose it at that time?

I have been outside for 30 minutes or a little less with bare hands, when it was well below zero, and within that time my hands would get so cold I couldn't use them to even open a door.  Someone else had to do it for me.  So how could Simon have held a pen(cil), and maybe wrote with it? afraid7 afraid7
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on May 29, 2020, 05:12:00 AM
That's what the den (a snow cave) was for. It's purpose is to trap body heat and remove co2. Nicolai was found with his gloves in his pocket.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: sparrow on May 29, 2020, 10:54:24 PM
Hi Nigel.  I (for the most part), along with others, believe the coat he was wearing belonged to Lyuda. That explains why he didn't put the gloves on; he didn't know they were there. 

As for Simon, since he was found in the water and he was maybe somewhat thawed, the running water would surely have washed ( at least the pen(cil)) out of his hand.

If they were still frozen solid, how did their skin get eaten off?   
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 29, 2020, 11:42:33 PM
If they were still frozen solid, how did their skin get eaten off?   

They were in the water for at least 2 weeks so they couldn't be frozen solid all over. At least some parts were thawed. I remember something WAB said:
https://dyatlovpass.com/chivruay-incident-2#9

Parts of the bodies that were washed by the water could have been thawed and eaten away.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 30, 2020, 06:12:18 AM
As for the Zolotaryov's camera: Valentin Yakimenko, who was a fellow student to the Dyatlov group and a member of the rescue team, presented the scans of Zolotaryov camera, no negatives, for first time in 2015 at the annual Dyatlov Conference in UPI now Ural Federal University .
Did he explain about the missing 9 (10) photographs from the "Zolotaryov" 's film ?
Also, from Yuri Kuntsevich's interview given in 2016 ( available here: https://tass.com/society/889813 ), I understand there were more rolls of film existing with the skiers, a total of 10 rolls. Does anyone know more about them ? What happened to them, etc ?
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 30, 2020, 07:02:51 AM
Look in the case files, page 5 back and then page 6: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6#5back
The 10 rolls are only the ones outside the cameras. Some of them are blank. We know nothing in the sense how many were shot of these 10.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 30, 2020, 07:19:12 AM
Look in the case files, page 5 back and then page 6: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6#5back
The 10 rolls are only the ones outside the cameras. Some of them are blank. We know nothing in the sense how many were shot of these 10.
Thanks.
What's more mysterious is that Yuri Yudin said that "almost all of them were carrying a camera". And still we have only four found...
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Teddy on May 30, 2020, 07:34:14 AM
And still we have only four found...

You are absolutely right. Many researchers like Rakitin count more cameras.
https://dyatlovpass.com/cameras
Read the last but one bullet:
With all said above we think there are at least two unaccounted cameras in addition to the 4 cameras from the crime inventory and the camera found on Zolotaryov's body.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: alecsandros on May 30, 2020, 07:41:29 AM
With all said above we think there are at least two unaccounted cameras in addition to the 4 cameras from the crime inventory and the camera found on Zolotaryov's body.
That further strengthens the case that somebody else knew about the unfortunate turn of events, before Fev 26th/27th...

Does anyone still have such cameras in working conditions ? It would be very usefull to attempt night photography with them in the same general lighting conditions as those existent during the night of Fev 1st/2nd 1959... 
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Marley on May 31, 2020, 11:30:07 AM
Question: do we know approximately when was this picture taken ? Because if it's the first of the pictures from Zorotalyov's camera, it may come from a different day...

I was wrong. This picture is not taken with Zolotaryov's camera. According to Keith ****'s description it was the first frame of a 12 frame long strip of negatives found at the Dyatlov Foundation. The next 10 frames showed (DPI) bodies in the morgue. The last one was blank. It wasn't Zolotaryov, but it was the last picture someone took.

Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Marley on May 31, 2020, 11:47:02 AM
Excellent thread. I've always considered the Plane2 photo (if real) to be pointing west or north west.
But do these shrubs grow so high there?

Nige,
Tiny, tiny spots on on old photographic film are not a convincing mark of anything, are they ?
According to trek accounts these shrubs were there, at that altitude. But what do I know?  whist1

Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 23, 2020, 07:20:52 AM
As said here https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=658.0 (https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=658.0) the three shrubs observation is a landmark.  loco1

Well done. But I feel it's wise to suggest caution with these photos, no one seems to have seen the negatives except for the displayed two frames that are clearly not exposed? (Woven mesh, Mushroom with face).
But again to my untrained eye Plane 2 and the three somethings seem to be actual photos.

Imo the solution to the DPI mystery could hinge on seeing those negatives.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: MDGross on June 23, 2020, 08:39:39 AM
Yes, analyzing the negatives would answer some questions. But you still need to consider how well a 1950's era camera works in the dark of night. In the case of the DPI photos, what was the f-stop and shutter speed set to? How sensitive was the film to light? Was a tripod used? These would greatly affect the photographs.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 23, 2020, 01:40:16 PM
A further question is why only one shot? Semyon survived the descent and got into the forest so why not get a another one or two frames of this thing adjusting the settings across a range of values? But perhaps he did and they were confiscated. From memory there are 9 missing frames on this roll. It is said that Semyon boasted to friends that he would be famous on the return from the trip. From the diary Igor had reservations of camping on the ridge, perhaps Semyon knew a lot about night photography....
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: hoosiergose on June 25, 2020, 12:15:09 PM
Nigel - I like the way you think - you possess deductive reasoning and a very analytical mind. I thoroughly enjoy reading your post.
They inspire much thought
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 26, 2020, 12:00:40 AM
Nigel - I like the way you think - you possess deductive reasoning and a very analytical mind. I thoroughly enjoy reading your post.
They inspire much thought
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: RidgeWatcher on June 27, 2020, 10:10:54 AM
Mr. Evans, I am curious if anyone has ever taken the camera/cameras type and film type, up to the the tent site at night, or the surrounding areas to see if they can simulate any of the photos. I know that the photograph with the two odd light has be discussed and debated but I was wondering if that photo could ever be replicated with the cameras and film of the era.


Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 28, 2020, 05:56:57 AM
I've just realised that i'm in error with attributing the three heads photo to Semyon. I have been busy recently. The photo does not belong to him but is attributed to Yuri K. It's the last frame in this roll :-

 (https://i.ibb.co/QbWsfBs/Dyatlov-pass-film1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/SskqPTq)



Also there is refutation of the meaning of the image - https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34


My opinion is that an argument that a frame is redundant because it's been exposed to light is a tad weak... The interpretation of the "heads" as "shrubs" tips the balance in favour of it being genuine imo. Also if the horizontal lines that exist on the RHS and the LHS were due to mechanical damage why are they not present to some extent on the previous frame?
There's a good exchange on this in this thread - https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=270.120
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 28, 2020, 06:31:10 AM
Mr. Evans, I am curious if anyone has ever taken the camera/cameras type and film type, up to the the tent site at night, or the surrounding areas to see if they can simulate any of the photos. I know that the photograph with the two odd light has be discussed and debated but I was wondering if that photo could ever be replicated with the cameras and film of the era.
Mr Evans? Why the formality? Dunno is the answer to the question.

There's this photo of "a light" apparently taken at the DP in 2012


 (https://i.ibb.co/tzPjBNN/dyatlov4-objeto2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)


It's from this website which is good reading for fireorb fans - https://www.viafanzine.jor.br/site_vf/pag/5/dyatlov_part04.htm (https://www.viafanzine.jor.br/site_vf/pag/5/dyatlov_part04.htm)
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: WAB on June 29, 2020, 10:46:34 AM
Mr. Evans, I am curious if anyone has ever taken the camera/cameras type and film type, up to the the tent site at night, or the surrounding areas to see if they can simulate any of the photos. I know that the photograph with the two odd light has be discussed and debated but I was wondering if that photo could ever be replicated with the cameras and film of the era.

Mr. RidgeWatcher, it seems to me that you are asking a rhetorical question with preknown answer. This is the universal "disease" of modern digital photography slaves - they know absolutely nothing about the features of "chemical" photography (or photography on film).
On this site https://dyatlovpass.com/  I have already analyzed in detail the features of the so-called "mysterious photo 34 frames" - https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34?rbid=18461  .many of this can be applied to the analysis of any photo from the same case.
About what Mr. Evans objects to you, I will write to him in the next message.
There have been numerous attempts take a similar photo on digital camera. But this requires many specific conditions. I suggested taking one on television because they have all the necessary conditions, but they refused for far-fetched reasons. In natural conditions, it requires lot of conditions and it's very difficult to do. Mainly because it's very unlikely that you can collect the right amount of equipment from those times and get the right weather at the same time. In addition, it requires certain and high financial costs. I have all the necessary developments, but nobody is interested in this yet
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: WAB on June 29, 2020, 10:48:41 AM
Mr. Evans, I am curious if anyone has ever taken the camera/cameras type and film type, up to the the tent site at night, or the surrounding areas to see if they can simulate any of the photos. I know that the photograph with the two odd light has be discussed and debated but I was wondering if that photo could ever be replicated with the cameras and film of the era.
Mr Evans? Why the formality? Dunno is the answer to the question.

There's this photo of "a light" apparently taken at the DP in 2012


 (https://i.ibb.co/tzPjBNN/dyatlov4-objeto2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)


It's from this website which is good reading for fireorb fans - https://www.viafanzine.jor.br/site_vf/pag/5/dyatlov_part04.htm (https://www.viafanzine.jor.br/site_vf/pag/5/dyatlov_part04.htm)

Mr. Evans, you gave wonderful example of speculation on this subject. I am fully aware of where, how, and under what circumstances this photo was taken, and what sort of analysis it was made directly on the spot and further on in the Russian segments of the Internet.
This photo was taken in August 2012 by Alexander Koshkin (KAN) in presence the writer Oleg Arkhipov and Valentin Yakimenko, -  member search Dyatlov group.
At night Koshkin took picture as moon shines, through the branches of trees and "very scared". At the same time Valentin Yakimenko got out of the tent (where they slept) and immediately explained to the cat that it was the moonlight through the branches of trees. But then in the forums Koshkin "inflated" this story very much (intentionally without mentioning what he had been told before) and a lot of people who wanted to speculate on this photo started doing it immediately. Natalia Diakonova (author of the article on the Brazilian site) also took part in it completely thoughtlessly.
If you want to make sensations on such events, you are very much pushing back the time to solve this story about the Dyatlov group.
Once again I suggest you use only verified and reliable information...

PS. I read the article on Brazilian site carefully, but I did not find anything new or original there. All this is  retelling of long known information. By the way, there is a very large number of errors and twisting of known facts. If you want, I will give you a review of this article after some time with a specific indication of errors and fictions. I know where (from which sites and forums) most of the information was taken. There is a complete borrowing of my information from the forum that appeared then. Of course, it is without reference to the original source.
I have not found competent reasoning about the reasons there, if only because they describe the terrain and the course of events that depends on it completely wrong. There's retelling old myths and fiction.
The only advantage of this article can be considered that it was almost the very first information in Brazil about the Dyatlov incident.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: Nigel Evans on June 30, 2020, 03:17:51 AM
Dear Mr WAB sir!
Well i think i'm on the side of Mr Koshkin, that object seems to be glowing with more than moonlight and if so you would expect it to be hot and heating the surrounding air with the water vapour contained within condensing at the object's thermal boundary and drifting away as steam.


 (https://i.ibb.co/ZWqwymX/dyatlov4-objeto.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)


Although he should have reported Yakimenko's observation to maintain balance.


On a separate question. Keith ****'s book "Journey to Dyatlov Pass" states that the film strip marked "Zolotaryov" has a "Plane3" photo. Two questions :-Best Regards.
Title: Re: Photographs
Post by: WAB on July 01, 2020, 03:29:49 AM
Dear Mr WAB sir!
Well i think i'm on the side of Mr Koshkin, that object seems to be glowing with more than moonlight and if so you would expect it to be hot and heating the surrounding air with the water vapour contained within condensing at the object's thermal boundary and drifting away as steam.


 (https://i.ibb.co/ZWqwymX/dyatlov4-objeto.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

1. You have the right to be on either side, as well as the right to be very wrong.
2. You should not add your fantasies to what was not there. Like something "hot" and "air heating". Nights in the North Urals, even in August, have very low temperatures, sometimes even negative (Celsius). What exactly was the fact of that night.
3. The fact that it is the moonlight and shortcomings of the simplest digital cameras is an undeniable fact obtained from the first source (Valentin Yakimenko). Therefore, there is no need to twist many tall tales around it. This distracts readers from the truth very much.
4. You, together with the Koshkin, can fantasize lot, but it is irrational activity.

Although he should have reported Yakimenko's observation to maintain balance.

Then it would be someone else...  lol4

On a separate question. Keith ****'s book "Journey to Dyatlov Pass" states that the film strip marked "Zolotaryov" has a "Plane3" photo. Two questions :-
    I don't think Mr. Keith ****'s statement is authoritative.
    1. It's a retelling of what they talked to Kuntsevich about what Valentin Yakimenko said, which is no longer original in the study.
    2. Keith **** himself analyzed this image on film directly...
    3. The inscription "Zolotarev" cannot speak about anything, because it is not clear who (presumably it was Ivanov) and why this inscription was made. This is nothing more than an abstract assumption, considering that on the film the images Zolotarev could have made with very little probability. There are many images of the UPI University summit in November 1958. If there's one thing I'm not confused about because I don't have any tapes in front of me right now...


       
    • Do you know about a Plane3 photo?

    This is what Valentin Yakimenko spoke abstractly about in 2013, and what he was much objected to by other people who know photography on film. This is not an image of an airplane. It is a very small fragment of a dried-up sodium sulfite crystal (part of the developer). Its size compared to the window of perforation of 135 type film is very small (about 40...50 times smaller), with the size of the "window" about 1.5 x 3.5 millimeters (0.059 x 0.139 in).
    Modern technologies make it possible make any magnifications by digital methods, but "chemical photography" does not allow obtain images of objects in this size on film with such sharp edges at these sizes of parts.
    I have not yet been able to convince Valentin Yakimenko that this statement is wrong, but many qualified experts in "chemical photography" confirm my opinion.

       
    • Do you know if the negatives of this strip are available to be shared, online etc?

    Please provide me direct link to this original negative. Not the image that Valentin Yakimenko himself gave as secondary image, and namely the original negative. It is better if it is with dimensions (in millimeters or inches - it will not be so important).
    If you do it honestly, it will be very clear to other readers.
    I have worked with original negatives in person (in my hands before my eyes). So I can talk about it for sure.

    • I think that the Plane2 photo is highly significant to the fireorb theory but inspection of the negative is important.

    Then why don't we do this test first, and then draw conclusions?
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Nigel Evans on July 01, 2020, 10:39:57 AM
    Please provide me direct link to this original negative. Not the image that Valentin Yakimenko himself gave as secondary image, and namely the original negative. It is better if it is with dimensions (in millimeters or inches - it will not be so important).
    If you do it honestly, it will be very clear to other readers.
    I have worked with original negatives in person (in my hands before my eyes). So I can talk about it for sure.

    • I think that the Plane2 photo is highly significant to the fireorb theory but inspection of the negative is important.

    Then why don't we do this test first, and then draw conclusions?
    It seems you have misunderstood, i am asking you if you know of the location of the Plane2 negative?

    Regards
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Australie on July 12, 2020, 11:04:15 PM
    I have been looking closely at the photos purported to come from Zolotaryovs camera. Frame 3 called Lynx looks to me like a human face when viewed from the side. Possibly wearing a hat or balaclava. The eighth image called eagle looks more like an antler. The eleventh image does resemble an aircraft but how would it be lit at night?
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: NightLurker on July 12, 2020, 11:36:44 PM
    Marley has a point in the "three heads" photo. Snow covered shrubs or snow covered rocks. That photo has no real merit because there are no bodies to go along with it.

    The pic with the three heads and the orb of light? Quite interesting but cold weather, nighttime, flash? Light could have bounced off a ski or something. Old film could pull that off too. Yes, I know about and have seen the "orbs" photos. My mother who was a photo journalist had quite a few of those in her collection of photos, black and white with a Pentax 35 mm camera. I'm not saying that there is nothing there, but for the most part, old film does that. Lighting can play tricks. a white wall with three peoples heads in the dark could display almost the same effect. My mom LOVED black and white pics of horses in the dark and she got a few like this.

    Read into the pics as you wish but don't hold them up as lore. I'm not being mean, but it does happen.

    Thanks for your post!

    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Marley on November 09, 2020, 09:22:54 AM
    And… I’m back! I planned to write a post on frame no. 34 back in June but real life got in the way. I also got a bit discouraged by the amount of old skool photography stuff I had to write in order to explain my take on no. 34. But now I’m ready to give a try. It’s going to be a long read. I can’t help it. Here we go. Enjoy!


    Old skool 101
    The exposure (brightness) of a photo depends on four variables:
    1.   Available light
    2.   Aperture. The opening in the lens through which the light travels before hitting the photographic plate/film/sensors. The size of the aperture can be adjusted. When it’s dark you need a large aperture. On a sunny day you can make do with a smaller one.
    3.   Shutter speed. The amount of time a film is exposed to light while taking a photo. When it’s dark you need to keep the shutter open for as long as possible.
    4.   Film sensitivity. Old skool films come in different grades of how sensitive they are to light. Some require a whole lot of light before they start reacting. We call them slow films. Others need far less time and far less photons to come up with a similar image.

    Baseline
    In the case files the camera settings and, most importantly the film speed are recorded of one particular photograph. There are two candidates. It doesn’t really matter which one it is because the brightness, the exposure of both photographs is basically the same.

    (https://i.ibb.co/P9PX7BK/two-digging.png) (https://ibb.co/CMYCkxg)

    In one of the cameras the last frame shows the moment of excavation of snow for the installation of the tent. Considering that this frame was shot with an exposure of 1/25 seconds, with a diaphragm of 5.6 at a film sensitivity of 65 Un., and taking into account the density of the frame, we can assume that the hikers started the installation of the tent around 5 pm 1.II.59. A similar picture was taken with another camera.
    (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-384-387, page 385)

    Bollocks
    Before I continue: The 5 pm estimate in that paragraph is utter bollocks. It’s not possible to determine the time of day by looking at a camera’s settings. It can’t be done. Even if you know the film speed, shutter speed and aperture size of a photograph, nobody knows, not even the Lord Jesus himself, the amount of photons bombarding a lens at a certain place, under certain weather conditions, coming from a certain angle and from a certain direction in precisely that split second (in short: variable 1 – available light) and connect that to a certain time of day. It’s madness to suggest otherwise. Ivanov is just being pompous here. He pulled that estimate right out of a certain body part. But I digress.

    Film speed
    Back to the film speed. 65 GOST (USSR sensitivity scale) is comparable to the (western) ASA/ISO value of 65. Anyone remotely familiar with old skool photography knows that this is at the slow end of the slow speed film scale. In short, a super slow film, aka a super light-insensitive film, a film that takes forever to react to light. Back in the day all films were like that, in the West as well, 50 or 100 ASA/ISO. In comparison: my run-of-the-mill camera phone can mimic a max. ISO sensitivity of 1,600. That’s about 25 times (!) more sensitive.
    So, while my camera phone can take a lovely picture of a lovely sunset somewhere in the Pacific (a person can dream) without any problem, those Zorkis needed an aperture the size of a pizza and/or a shutter time long enough for me to take a shower, pour myself a gin and tonic (you can have one as well grin1) and order something more appealing than a pizza, and still it wouldn’t be a half decent photograph. Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit. But not much.

    This is why the Dyatlov files contain only a handful (5) of indoor photographs, all of them quite dark with two thoroughly underexposed. There aren’t any pretty sunsets, campfire scenes or horsing around inside the tent photographs. That slow film speed, not to mention the rest of their technology, didn’t allow it.
    So it’s highly unusual that somebody on that pass tried to take a photograph at night, in the dark. (No, it’s not a technician’s shot. I’ll get to that later) They knew better. We all knew better. It must have been something extraordinary that prompted them to bring out the camera and try to take a picture at night. Something extraordinary and very bright.

    Exposure time
    No matter how bright the object was, to make an imprint on that super slow film of 65 GOST, the shutter needed to stay open for a long time. As in a long, looooooooooooong time. The daytime photograph of setting up the tent has an exposure time of 1/25 seconds. That is long. That is the longest available shutter speed on those cameras bar the manual option: pressing the “keep the shutter open” button for as long as necessary. Any nighttime photograph like Frame no. 34, regardless of who made it and where, obviously required an exposure time well beyond 1/25 of a second.

    Tripod
    And here’s the thing. Those max shutter times on cameras are indicative of the time you can hold the camera steady enough to make a crisp and clear photograph. If you keep the shutter open any time longer you, your camera, and ultimately your photograph will get the shakes. It takes multiple seconds to make a nighttime photograph like Frame no. 34. During those multiple seconds a handheld camera would be all over the place. But that’s not true of Frame no. 34 is it? It’s steady, well organized. There is movement but it’s not the camera that’s moving. It’s the light. That camera was mounted on a tripod. There’s no doubt about it.

    Now, we all know that the search party found a tripod, right? A tripod and a cracked light filter. On this site it’s presented as if these items were found separately from the cameras. Photographic accessories just lying around. But when I went through the case files I realized this wasn’t the case at all. From the very start https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6?rbid=17743 a camera with serial number 488797 is described as ”coming with” aka mounted on a tripod and with a broken light filter attached. The counter of that camera stopped at the 34th frame and there’s plenty of evidence that this is Krivonischenko’s camera and that Frame no. 34 was made with this particular Zorki. I can explain this at length in a separate post. if you folks are interested but for now just trust me on this. Frame no. 34 was made with a camera mounted on a tripod and with a light filter on the lens.

    Aperture
    The last setting that determines the exposure of a photograph is the aperture size. De different sizes are described by so called f-numbers. I won’t go into the specifics of these numbers but f/8 is the lazy man’s number. That aperture works for most situations under daylight conditions. The f/5.6 used for the setting up the tent photograph is one stop larger (i.e. doubles the amount of light) which makes total sense considering the low sensitivity of the film and the lack of sunlight. The maximum aperture size of those Zorkis was f/3.5, another one and a third stop larger than the aperture used for the setting up the tent photograph. You’d expect Frame no. 34 to be shot with the largest aperture available but that isn’t the case. The photograph itself proves that they used a smaller diaphragm. My guess is that they didn’t have the time to get all the settings right. They just plunked the tripod-camera down and held the manual shutter speed button for a number of seconds. That’s all they did. They didn’t adjust the diaphragm.

    Diaphragm
    A diaphragm, the mechanism that controls the aperture, consists of blades. When the aperture is at its largest these blades are fully withdrawn. The aperture is circular shaped. A smaller aperture brings out the blades. They form a polygon, the number of sides depending on the number of blades. Six blades is very common.
    (https://i.ibb.co/DKWwfGj/diaphragm2.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

    Ghosts
    Smack in the middle of Frame no. 34 there’s exactly that same shape:
    (https://i.ibb.co/H7hQhGR/34-bewerk.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CBPFPV4)

    It’s not a light or an object in the real world, nor the eye of a monster. It’s a ghost. But not a supernatural one. It’s the result of lens flare, a totally explainable phenomenon. A light beam enters the lens, but instead of passing through the lens unhindered the photons start bouncing off walls and more specifically the blades of the diaphragm, leaving an impression of the shape of the aperture. This happens when there is a bright light shining directly at the lens.

    (https://i.ibb.co/D8rcQ3F/ghost.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

    Ghosts are common, but this is a massive clue that Frame no. 34 isn’t a random technician’s shot. To create a ghost a light needs to be quite bright. The sun will do, or stage light. An average light bulb in a technician’s office (not to mention a dark room) not so much. And if an office lamp was bright enough to create a ghost, it would definitely be bright enough to illuminate the room to the extent that we would see at least something of the room’s interior. We don’t. There’s just this ghost and his mother.

    Mother
    The mother light that causes the ghost to appear is obviously the one on the left. It appears to be more or less rectangular, which is odd. Basic science tells us that light radiates from its source. So unless there is something to constrict it, like a window frame or something, a light, seen from a sufficient distance will always appear to be sphere-shaped. Regardless of the original “shape” of the source. Planes on fire don’t appear like bright, plane-shaped artifacts on a photograph. They take on the shape of fire. But that’s another story.
    Here the apparent rechtangular shape of of our mother light matters. If you look a bit more closely though the light isn’t really rectangular. You can actually recognize the hexagonal shape of the diaphragm. It’s not easy to tell because there’s not one solitary ghost but a trail of polygons overlapping each other. But it’s there. The mother of ghosts has ghost qualities herself. And again this is a known phenomenon. A light can spawn a whole array of ghosties.

    (https://i.ibb.co/P67Xt42/multiple-ghosts.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

    But inside there is a light, and if we were able to see it with our own eyes it would look completely normal, spherical, like any light in the sky. I mean the shape would be normal. The brightness of that light must have been something else. Don’t be fooled by the apparent mwah quality of the photograph. To create a (number of) ghost(s), to even register on a super insensitive film, that must have a been a serious, big ass light.

    Tail
    As I explained earlier, even with a big ass light and an average sized aperture (I’m going for a f/5.6. Dissenting opinions welcome) Frame no. 34 needed a long, hand timed exposure time. Which brings me to the tail that seems to follow the light. Some people believe it’s heat or vapour, toxic gasses, exhaust fumes, something like that. But this is yet another optical illusion. This time it’s not a ghost. It’s the same object, the same light source, making an imprint time and time and time and time and time again during the same take but each time at a different position. It’s a fast moving object photographed with a slow shutter speed.

    (https://i.ibb.co/m67vD3c/race-cars.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

    Trajectory
    If you live close to an airport’s flight path (like I do) it’s easy to recognize in Frame no. 34 the trajectory of a descending plane. If a plane comes right at you, the light seems stationary in the sky for quite a long time. Then it starts to move, slowly at first but picking up speed as it comes closer. The light continues to accelerate and it starts to descend faster and faster until the plane thunders by, leaving the impression that it followed a curved trajectory and picked up speed during the descend. Neither of that is true. The flight path overhead is a straight line and planes do not accelerate when descending. That curved trajectory is optical illusion number four.

    Two lights?
    What interests me is that the tail seems to consist of two lights, whereas the mother light is undoubtedly a single source. It doesn’t look like a lonesome missile. I wonder if it could be an ASM (air-to-surface) missile, a cruise missile, something like that.
    Any ideas?

    Title: Photographs
    Post by: Monty on November 09, 2020, 12:12:52 PM
    Staggering analysis.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: sarapuk on November 09, 2020, 02:43:30 PM
    All speculative analysis. Just guesswork. No evidence.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Nigel Evans on November 10, 2020, 02:39:13 AM
    I'm loving it! Marley's expert post is describing my belief that these photos are genuine. My favourite theory is that they deliberately elected to pitch the tent at that location to photograph these lights (which they had already observed on previous nights) with Igor recording his doubts in the group diary the night before. If so then this rules out military ordnance of course. If you then also rule out YuriK's peculiar third degree burns resulting from a modest campfire then you're left with........ electricity.



    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Marley on November 10, 2020, 07:17:46 AM
    Thank you Monty and Nigel.
    I'm sorry to hear you're not convinced, sarapuk. Can you elaborate on what you consider guesswork re my post? I thought I was being rather factual. The specs of those cameras are correct and so are the descriptions of lens flare and motion blur. So I'd really like to know where you think I'm making stuff up. That would really help me to improve my theory. Or discard it even, if I missed something big. Thanks in advance.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Marley on November 10, 2020, 07:35:11 AM
    And I have more... dance1

    Frame no. 34 (continued)

    Film no. 1
    Frame no. 34 is part of Film no. 1 and is attributed to Krivonischenko. Film no. 1 is the only film in the Dyatlov archives that is complete. The standard length of old skool films is 36 exposures and all 36 frames are there:  https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-film1.jpg. The film is cut in 6 strips of 6 negatives each, as is (nowadays) standard practice, except for the last strip. The one that contains frame no. 34 has an additional, sloppy cut, made with scissors, between frames no. 31 and 32.

    When Koskin and Kuntsevich researched the photo archive in 2009 they cut up the films/longer film strips in the usual 6-frame format. It’s safe to assume they are responsible for the overall cutting of film no. 1. The sloppy scissor cut was made by someone else at an earlier date, possibly during the 1959 investigation.

    The cut off strip
    The cut-off strip starts with two shots of the group on Feb 1, going up the pass. The next photograph is frame no. 34 and the last two frames are blank. They appear completely blank, as if never exposed to light. When you take a picture in the dark you get a blank negative as well (blank negative means a black print) but usually you can see a few vague lines or spots or blotches on a negative because complete darkness (as a natural phenomenon) is extremely rare. There’s always a stray photon hopping around. But there’s nothing here. I’m confident that frame no. 34 was the last photo taken.

    A snippet of paper
    Near the back of the case files there’s an envelope containing three pieces of paper. On each of these snippets is something written like “film from…” followed by a serial number from one of the three cameras initially retrieved from the tent site. https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-volume-2-17?rbid=19667

    And luckily for us one of the pieces has even more information on it. It says:
    488797 Zorkiy
    film № 1
    tripod attached
    missing 3 frames


    That last line, missing 3 frames, is written with different ink and in a different handwriting. The handwriting of the rest of the note is, if I’m not mistaken, Ivanov’s.
    So now we have two films no. 1: “our” film that contains Frame no. 34 and the one mentioned on the snippet. “Our” film has the last three photographs cut off, and the “snippet” film has three frames missing. There’s every chance that these two films are one and the same. And we can more or less figure out what happened to it.

    What happened to Film no. 1
    Initially they found three cameras (I’ll get to that shortly). Somebody (Ivanov?) had the films from these cameras developed but not cut. He received three continuous strips of 36 negatives. He looked at the films to see if they contained any information about what had happened to the hikers. He took an interest in the last three negatives of Film no. 1, cut them off and gave them to a technician, asking for prints.

    Nowadays having prints made takes you… what?... 30 minutes? Something like that. Back in 1959 it was a time consuming business. They had to feed all the negatives one by one into a device called an enlarger. The enlarger projected the image onto photographic paper. Next the paper had to go through a number of chemical baths: developer, stop bath, fixer, washing. Finally the paper had to dry. One film took you hours. It’s common sense that the prosecutor’s office didn’t print all of the photos made by the group. They only printed a small selection.

    At one point photographic films started to come with preprinted numbers on the edge so you could easily identify each frame. The Dyatlov films didn’t have any numbers. The person requesting prints could not send the whole strip of negatives (all 36 of them) and say: I’d like a print of frames no. 6, 21, and 32 to 34, please. The surest way to get the photographs you wanted was to cut the film up and only send the negatives that had to be printed. So I don’t think there’s anything nefarious about the Dyatlov films being cut up. The man with the scissors didn’t work for the KGB. He was just making a selection of negatives he wanted to see in print.

    It seems that the strip with the three frames from film no. 1 never got reunited with the rest of the film. And when somebody else went through the case files afterwards, archiving the whole shebang perhaps, he found that the information on that piece of paper did not match the number of negatives filed with said paper. And that’s when he wrote: 3 frames missing. That’s Soviet bureaucracy for you 
    But let’s move on to the best bit of information on this little piece of paper: the tripod!

    A tripod attached
    According to this piece of paper Film no. 1 belongs to a camera with serial number 488797 but that’s not all. This camera was mounted on a tripod. It says: screwed on. It says: attached. This is not a report on how they found some camera accessories lying around and managed to link them to a certain camera. No. This is just a little note saying: this film comes from that camera. That camera being the one with serial number 488797 and A TRIPOD ATTACHED. I repeat: A tripod attached. A tr…  grin1

    To state the obvious: when you’re on a skiing trip you don’t ski around with a tripod attached to your camera. You carry the tripod in your backpack and the camera (in its protective casing) wherever it suits you: around your neck or in side pocket of your backpack or something like that. On the rare occasion you want to take a tripod mounted photo while on the go, you disassemble the whole thing and store the tripod away before taking off again. You don’t mount your camera just for the heck of it; you don’t leave it mounted when you go off to bed. 99% of the time your camera and your tripod are not joined together.

    But according to this piece of paper camera no. 488797 had a tripod attached to it. And this strongly suggests that the camera was “abandoned” (for lack of a better word) just before, or shortly after someone took (or wanted to take) a tripod mounted photograph of something. And if there’s one kind of shot that screams Tripod! it’s nightscapes. Long exposure time, slow shutter speed photography under low light conditions. But I’m getting ahead of myself. First I need to follow the paper trail of this camera and it’s tripod all the way back to the tent site.

    Inspection protocol – Camera no. 488797
    One of the first documents in the case files is a joint inspection protocol by Tempalov and Maslennikov about their findings on 27 Feb 1959. That’s the day they found the bodies of the first five hikers. Tempalov wrote the report on the spot. He, Maslennikov and three witnesses (including Slobtsov, who discovered the tent the previous day) signed it. It’s as official as it gets.

    The report contains a list of documents and valuables retrieved from the tent site. There are three cameras on that list, identified by their serial number. The number of frames shot with each camera is also recorded. And “our” camera is described as “with” a tripod and broken light filter:
    1. Camera "Zorki" with a tripod and a broken light filter. Camera № 488797. Filmed 34 frames.
    2. Camera "Zorki" № 486963. Filmed 27 frames. Deep scratches on the case. Strap is torn.
    3. Camera "Zorki" № 55149239. Filmed 27 frames.

    https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6?rbid=17743

    And again, this is not a report on how they found a couple of cameras and some accessories and how they managed to link the accessories to a certain camera. No. This is merely a list of things retrieved. If the camera, the tripod and the light filter were found separately they would have been itemized separately. Because this is an official protocol. Besides, Tempalov, or the search party had no way of knowing that the tripod and light filter belonged to that one particular Zorki unless they were attached to it. Not while they were on that mountain. Not on 27 Feb.

    I’m perfectly satisfied that when Tempalov was presented with the camera, it was attached to a tripod, and there was a damaged light filter on the lens.

    There are two other instances in the case files where camera no. 488797 is mentioned,
    https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-3-6?rbid=17743
    https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-volume-2-42
    and on both occasions it is described in the same way, as coming “with” a tripod and a broken light filter.

    A broken light filter
    So I disagree with the claim on this site that the light filter was found in its casing:
    That is the other strange detail - the light filter has its own protective case and to brake [sic] the filter one has to either stomp on top or take it put and brake [sic] it. The filter was found cracked inside its protective case.
    https://dyatlovpass.com/cameras
    The case files show otherwise. It was mounted on the lens. And that makes perfect (old skool photography) sense.

    The type of light filter is not specified in the files but there’s a 99.9% chance that it’s a UV-filter. That was the first filter people would buy and very often the only one. Other kinds of filters only made sense when you were quite serious about photography (and you had a high quality camera). A UV-filter is useful when photographing snowy landscapes. It’s the one filter I would bring on a skiing trip.

    The good thing about a UV-filter is that it has hardly any negative side effects. You can leave it mounted, make all the photographs you want under all kinds of circumstances and they won’t be any worse for it. That’s what people did, back in the day. You left the filter on 24/7, unless it cracked of course. A cracked filter would leave a mark on all subsequent photos.

    Camera filters are rather fragile. They’re just a thin disk of glass in a metal frame. Drop it, step on it and they’re gone. But when mounted on a camera, in front of the lens, you need to slam the camera, lens first, into a solid object. That’s not your average camera accident. Something violent happened to that camera before it reached Tempalov and he wrote: Camera "Zorki" with a tripod and a broken light filter.

    Camera no. 488797, which belongs to Krivonischenko, was found with a broken light filter mounted but as far as I can tell none of Krivo’s photographs show any sign of cracks, lines, spider webs, spots, in short a damaged filter. Everything suggests that the damage occurred after the last photograph was shot. The last being our notorious frame no. 34. And that brings us to the last bit of information from the Inspection protocol: the number of photographs taken.


    The number of photographs
    It is suggested on this site that the number of photographs taken with each camera (34, 27 and 27) was determined by taking the film out of the camera, developing it and then counting the number of negatives. I disagree. There was no need to do that. Besides, the Inspection protocol was written on the spot, according to the witness testimonies of Tempalov, Maslennikov, Slobtsov, Brusnitsyn and every other person on the mountain that day.

    Those old cameras had mechanical counters. Every time you pushed the advance lever (or turned the advance knob) the counter would add one. That’s how you knew how many photos you had taken and how many frames there were left. That’s how Tempalov knew right away the number of photos taken with each camera. They didn’t take the film out, had it developed and counted the negatives. No. They just wrote down the number shown by the counters.

    And this ties all the evidence together:
    Frame no. 34 comes from a camera that was found mounted on a tripod and with a broken light filter attached. The counter of that camera stopped at 34 frames. Frame no. 34 doesn’t show any signs of damage to the light filter, nor does any of the earlier photographs. This strongly suggests the damage occurred after someone took photo no. 34 but before Tempalov registered the light filter as broken. This essentially refutes the theory that frame no. 34 was a random technicians’ shot.

    There is a slim possibility that Slobtsov, or one of his mates from the search party, is responsible for our mystery photo. They had custody of that camera for a couple of hours before Tempalov wrote his report. But then, did they smash the light filter as well after taking that shot? What for? And what about the tripod? Were they responsible for mounting the camera? If so, why? It just doesn’t make sense.

    There’s only one logical explanation for the state of that camera + film, as recorded by Tempalov on the 27th. Krivo, or one of his friends, took photograph no. 34 during the night or in the early morning of Feb 2. In order to do so they mounted the camera on the tripod. They managed to take that shot but then something happened that sent the camera, with the tripod attached, flying. It slammed, lens first, into a solid object, causing the filter to crack. And that’s how Slobtsov and friends found it.

    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: sarapuk on November 11, 2020, 05:14:23 PM
    I'm loving it! Marley's expert post is describing my belief that these photos are genuine. My favourite theory is that they deliberately elected to pitch the tent at that location to photograph these lights (which they had already observed on previous nights) with Igor recording his doubts in the group diary the night before. If so then this rules out military ordnance of course. If you then also rule out YuriK's peculiar third degree burns resulting from a modest campfire then you're left with........ electricity.

    What  !  ?  They risked their lives to photograph Electricity.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: sarapuk on November 11, 2020, 05:20:38 PM
    Thank you Monty and Nigel.
    I'm sorry to hear you're not convinced, sarapuk. Can you elaborate on what you consider guesswork re my post? I thought I was being rather factual. The specs of those cameras are correct and so are the descriptions of lens flare and motion blur. So I'd really like to know where you think I'm making stuff up. That would really help me to improve my theory. Or discard it even, if I missed something big. Thanks in advance.

    Well the Cameras would be useful, but like other things, they disappeared. I would like to inspect the films as well. I believe the films are kept safe.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Nigel Evans on November 12, 2020, 01:16:56 AM
    I'm loving it! Marley's expert post is describing my belief that these photos are genuine. My favourite theory is that they deliberately elected to pitch the tent at that location to photograph these lights (which they had already observed on previous nights) with Igor recording his doubts in the group diary the night before. If so then this rules out military ordnance of course. If you then also rule out YuriK's peculiar third degree burns resulting from a modest campfire then you're left with........ electricity.

    What  !  ?  They risked their lives to photograph Electricity.


    What you do not do after ascending 1000ft up a mountain on skis in a raging blizzard carrying a heavy backpack and clearing a metre of snow to pitch your tent  with an apex 1metre high and then sharing it with 8 other individuals who are climbing over you to get outside for night time toilet trips is......... setup a camera on a tripod for no purpose.
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Naufragia on November 12, 2020, 02:20:11 AM
    @ Marley

    An excellent piece of analysis and really well explained.  bow7 Thank you so much!
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: MDGross on November 12, 2020, 07:05:57 AM
    A possible scenario: Ball lightning phenomena are seen by the Dyatlov group on the evening of Feb. 1. After the first sightings, Yuri K. sets up his tripod and camera and shoots frame 34. Zolotaryov also takes several photos, but his are distorted because his camera is hand held. Before Yuri K. can take another photo (he has two frames remaining), ball lightning gets nears and explodes. The guys outside the tent see fireballs rolling down the slope. As underdressed as they are, those inside the tent exit in fear of their lives. In the confusion, Yuri K's tripod is knocked over breaking the light filter. Zolotaryov. who is holding his camera, simply puts the camera strap around his neck as the group descends. At first they walk rapidly as fireballs continue to be seen. Then Slobodin falls and fractures his skull. A couple of guys help him down the slope and everyone slows to a normal walking pace for fear of falling in the pitch black.

    Hey, thanks to the great work by Marley, I believe we've solved the case. shock1 nea1 thumb1
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: Nigel Evans on November 12, 2020, 09:26:14 AM
    I like the narrative that some of them got whacked by a fireorb on the descent which made a flashlight useless and/or was lost in the confusion and the ravine four carried on in fear of their lives. These four chose the raised ground at the cedar to light a fire as it would act as a beacon and help the stragglers find them (not much use calling out in high winds). The 2Yuris made it later barely alive and soon to perish. Meanwhile they built the den on Semyon's advice. After an hour or so of the rest failing to turn up the four abandoned the fire (it appears to have been extinguished) and retired to the den. Then something happened in the ravine....
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: RidgeWatcher on November 13, 2020, 12:08:40 PM
    Thank you Marley,

    I took 3 years of photography (1970's) using several of my father's cameras. My favorite was a Zeiss(Ikon?) from the early 50's. I used to see the tell-tell signs of the shudder eye and would realize with a slow recognition that the photo was ruined.

    Thank you for a complete analysis and kind words for the novice.

    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: mk on November 13, 2020, 06:13:54 PM
    And I have more... dance1
    [lots of really awesome stuff...]

    Good grief, I want to stand up and cheer.  It's like the ending of an underdog movie when the little kid hits the homerun out of the park.  Finally!

    There are some really good posts and ideas on this forum.  There are others that I suspect are really good, but the translations are tripping me up.  There are those that I think, "Wow. Maybe.  I could see that happening," and some that I just shake my head and click on by.

    But it is rare to find a particular point carefully explained in a way I can understand, step by step, all the way through.  I kept thinking, "Of course--of course!"  What you explained is exactly what I imagined the first time I saw the photo.  And then I imagined a hundred other things it might have been and got sidetracked by what-ifs. Thank you for sorting out my impressions and explaining those things that niggling at the back of my mind.  What you say makes SO much sense.

    (And for the rest of you who have actually made posts as clear and thoughtful as Marley's--I'm sure it's my own fault for not recognizing their greatness, perhaps because I don't have enough background with the specialized subject to grasp the salient points.)

    Thank you, Marley, for taking the time to write up all this.  Please--anything else you have to say on the subject--please share with us!
    Title: Re: Photographs
    Post by: eurocentric on November 14, 2020, 05:19:13 AM
    Dear Mr WAB sir!
    Well i think i'm on the side of Mr Koshkin, that object seems to be glowing with more than moonlight and if so you would expect it to be hot and heating the surrounding air with the water vapour contained within condensing at the object's thermal boundary and drifting away as steam.


     (https://i.ibb.co/ZWqwymX/dyatlov4-objeto.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

    1. You have the right to be on either side, as well as the right to be very wrong.
    2. You should not add your fantasies to what was not there. Like something "hot" and "air heating". Nights in the North Urals, even in August, have very low temperatures, sometimes even negative (Celsius). What exactly was the fact of that night.
    3. The fact that it is the moonlight and shortcomings of the simplest digital cameras is an undeniable fact obtained from the first source (Valentin Yakimenko). Therefore, there is no need to twist many tall tales around it. This distracts readers from the truth very much.
    4. You, together with the Koshkin, can fantasize lot, but it is irrational activity.

    Although he should have reported Yakimenko's observation to maintain balance.

    Then it would be someone else...  lol4

    On a separate question. Keith ****'s book "Journey to Dyatlov Pass" states that the film strip marked "Zolotaryov" has a "Plane3" photo. Two questions :-
      I don't think Mr. Keith ****'s statement is authoritative.
      1. It's a retelling of what they talked to Kuntsevich about what Valentin Yakimenko said, which is no longer original in the study.
      2. Keith **** himself analyzed this image on film directly...
      3. The inscription "Zolotarev" cannot speak about anything, because it is not clear who (presumably it was Ivanov) and why this inscription was made. This is nothing more than an abstract assumption, considering that on the film the images Zolotarev could have made with very little probability. There are many images of the UPI University summit in November 1958. If there's one thing I'm not confused about because I don't have any tapes in front of me right now...


         
      • Do you know about a Plane3 photo?

      This is what Valentin Yakimenko spoke abstractly about in 2013, and what he was much objected to by other people who know photography on film. This is not an image of an airplane. It is a very small fragment of a dried-up sodium sulfite crystal (part of the developer). Its size compared to the window of perforation of 135 type film is very small (about 40...50 times smaller), with the size of the "window" about 1.5 x 3.5 millimeters (0.059 x 0.139 in).
      Modern technologies make it possible make any magnifications by digital methods, but "chemical photography" does not allow obtain images of objects in this size on film with such sharp edges at these sizes of parts.
      I have not yet been able to convince Valentin Yakimenko that this statement is wrong, but many qualified experts in "chemical photography" confirm my opinion.

         
      • Do you know if the negatives of this strip are available to be shared, online etc?

      Please provide me direct link to this original negative. Not the image that Valentin Yakimenko himself gave as secondary image, and namely the original negative. It is better if it is with dimensions (in millimeters or inches - it will not be so important).
      If you do it honestly, it will be very clear to other readers.
      I have worked with original negatives in person (in my hands before my eyes). So I can talk about it for sure.

      • I think that the Plane2 photo is highly significant to the fireorb theory but inspection of the negative is important.

      Then why don't we do this test first, and then draw conclusions?


      If I can respond to that highlighted point...

      I find it hard to conceive of this DPI film, of all films, not being processed properly, given how it was recovered months later and may have held the forensic evidence they desperately required to explain this tragedy. I'm sure it would be treated like a black box flight recorder recovered from the floor of the ocean, and not subject to inadequate processing, rushed through by a student.

      The developer is only the first of 4 liquid stages, followed by acetic acid or running water 'stop bath' solution which would quickly end the development stage, and then the fixer, followed by rinsing. Agitation during these processes, especially the longer development, is continuous, together with knocking the developing tank to dislodge air bubbles. It's a very active process compared to rocking prints around in a developing tray.

      Generally speaking chemical processing faults do not cause angular marks/shapes, they tend to be rounded, blobby, more random. Mechanical grazing inside a developing tank potentially could, the film getting mashed in the tank reel during loading. Mishandling with print forceps could also scratch a wet print emulsion. The images could also be faked, either using a stencil across the printing paper at exposure to room light, or by photographing the stencil in the dark with a bright light shining up at it, to produce a negative.

      The bottom line is, if the two 'plane' images are taken to be a random processing fault then it's a pretty remarkable coincidence that the crystalline results share so many features with the only non-phenomena thing which could have been in the air that night, motionless enough to allow the camera to photograph it without blurring, and with the underlighting of perhaps flares dropped for better visibility.


      (https://i.ibb.co/c2wrSjt/screenshot.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dkt5wR6)

      (https://i.ibb.co/gRRVpm4/screenshot-1-22.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rwwsSFd)

      Note also, how related to that, the clearest of Semyon's photo's images a bright lamp, and the Yak-24 fits the bill there too, with one the same shape and angle.


      (https://i.ibb.co/LhP0QTR/Yak-24-003.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Dgb1GBW)

      I find it bizarre how much credibility is given in Dyatlov folklore to the supposed 'yeti' photo, which is clearly determined to be a man for the sake of some simple adjustments to brightness and contrast, but somehow the work of a man running around all night with a camera is dismissed as either the result of processing faults, or alternatively, producing the imagined animal visions of a mystical interpreter.[/list]
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Marley on November 14, 2020, 05:47:35 AM
      Thank you @Naufragia, @MDGross, @RidgeWatcher, @mk for your kind words. I always get nervous when writing a post this long. Nothing hurts my ego more than a tl;dr in response. embarr1 And I’m happy you all thought my analysis convincing.

      @RidgeWatcher, I’m not familiar with the expression “shudder eye”. It conjures up images of a horrible disease but I’m sure that’s not right. lol4 Please enlighten me.
      You learned the trade with a Contax IIa/IIIa? (that’s the post-war Zeiss Ikon rangefinder) Lucky you. Those are legendary!

      @mk, I do have more kewl1 And after all this praise what else can I do but try and write a sequel? I keep you posted.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 14, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
      Hello to all - I haven't posted yet to this forum, so excuse my directness:

      I would like clear up a long-time mistake. I happen to have analyzed the frames from this topic over the last weeks. I am currently writing a paper in which there will be more insights, but at the moment I would like to assure you that:

      The 1st frame in Zolotaryov's presumptive frame series is actually a magnified CUTOUT of frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera.

      They both represent the same frame!

      Here's how I found out: I was intrigued by the 3 bushes, heads or whatever, and I wanted to look for similar artefacts in other frames. So I enhanced frame 34 and noticed the same 3 artefacts at the bottom right. I was excited first and thought they were the same bushes. I then enhanced more, added Gamma, Contrast and Histogram correction, overlayed the 2 pictures and came up with exactly the SAME SCRATCHES. There is absolutely no doubt - these bumps are from frame 34. The scratches are a forensic fingerprint, like the marks on a projectile that can only come from one gun.

      As to the origins of the bumps, I can only guess. They could be the fingers (or fingerprints) of the lab technician who developed the negative. I had that happen to me back in the old days when I was developing film myself in the lab. If they're the bushes compared to a contemporary photo earlier in this thread, that would be a real wonder - I know of no bush that remains the same size & shape over half a century.

      (https://i.ibb.co/mtpPXzR/Dyatlov-3-heads-Collage2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/J2ZSykc)

      To me: I'm an image analysis & software engineer, I write algorithms and software.
      Cheers, Henning
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 14, 2020, 01:54:31 PM
      ...The 1st frame in Zolotaryov's presumptive frame series is actually a magnified CUTOUT of frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera.

      They both represent the same frame!

      Interesting!  I follow your explanation, I think, so far as it goes.  Does this mean you suspect someone intentionally made a blow-up print of that particular part of the negative?  Or is there another reason the frame might be cut? 
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 14, 2020, 03:03:58 PM
      ..stuff about the helicopter...

      I feel a little silly asking this, but I don't quite follow you and I want to understand.  If the hazy, white shape is a helicopter, why is the whole thing glowing white in the picture?  Is a searchlight shining on it? Are there, perhaps, two aircraft present, and one has the spotlight on the other?  Is it possible for a light inside the helicopter to shine through the whole thing and make it sort of glow?  You could probably convince me that the shape is the same as a helicopter shape; I can't argue because I don't know a thing about aircraft.  But I'm having a hard time imagining how the picture came to look like that.  When a car drives up on a dark night, you don't see the whole outline of the car--just the headlights.  When you come upon a house at night, you don't see the outline of the whole house unless there is another light source--just the windows to rooms which have lights inside.  In the night sky, I can only identify an airplane by the blinking lights on the wings or tail or whatever--I never can see the whole plane.  I don't understand how the whole helicopter body showed up in the photo.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 14, 2020, 03:16:52 PM
      Interesting!  I follow your explanation, I think, so far as it goes.  Does this mean you suspect someone intentionally made a blow-up print of that particular part of the negative?  Or is there another reason the frame might be cut?

      In my opinion: Reducing the amount of information in a photo (cutting, zooming) can only have one reason: to create a confirmation bias, i.e. to influence a certain opinion. Valentin Yakimenko, who allegedly created the Zolotaryov album, was very much into the "fallen angel/higher level demonic involvement" theory. So he found some scratches, ice crystals and dust particles and enhanced them to the size of spaceships and daemons. Why he chose to sneak in frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera...? Obviously to underscrore his point.

      If you don't follow this psycho-religious stuff, you can basically ignore the whole collection, except two. The only frames that seem original are the two "eagle" frames showing a light blob. If someone can find the original, unaltered frames from Zolotaryov's camera, I would be quite happy. I have not been able to find them.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 14, 2020, 03:22:33 PM
      ..stuff about the helicopter...

      I feel a little silly asking this, but I don't quite follow you and I want to understand.  If the hazy, white shape is a helicopter, why is the whole thing glowing white in the picture?  Is a searchlight shining on it? Are there, perhaps, two aircraft present, and one has the spotlight on the other?  Is it possible for a light inside the helicopter to shine through the whole thing and make it sort of glow?  You could probably convince me that the shape is the same as a helicopter shape; I can't argue because I don't know a thing about aircraft.  But I'm having a hard time imagining how the picture came to look like that.  When a car drives up on a dark night, you don't see the whole outline of the car--just the headlights.  When you come upon a house at night, you don't see the outline of the whole house unless there is another light source--just the windows to rooms which have lights inside.  In the night sky, I can only identify an airplane by the blinking lights on the wings or tail or whatever--I never can see the whole plane.  I don't understand how the whole helicopter body showed up in the photo.

      I mentioned how flares may have been dropped to provide a source of lighting underneath. This brightly burning light, intended to illuminate a wide search area, far exceeding the directional abilities of a search light, could either be a hand flare dropped to the ground, or one discharged on a parachute where it floats down. This may also explain the burning to some tree tops said to be observed by the recovery team.

      (https://i.ibb.co/8bxFxfS/maxresdefault.jpg) (https://ibb.co/W0zSzMY)

      (https://i.ibb.co/Zdgdsb2/th.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 14, 2020, 03:33:07 PM
      Hello to all - I haven't posted yet to this forum, so excuse my directness:

      I would like clear up a long-time mistake. I happen to have analyzed the frames from this topic over the last weeks. I am currently writing a paper in which there will be more insights, but at the moment I would like to assure you that:

      The 1st frame in Zolotaryov's presumptive frame series is actually a magnified CUTOUT of frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera.

      They both represent the same frame!

      Here's how I found out: I was intrigued by the 3 bushes, heads or whatever, and I wanted to look for similar artefacts in other frames. So I enhanced frame 34 and noticed the same 3 artefacts at the bottom right. I was excited first and thought they were the same bushes. I then enhanced more, added Gamma, Contrast and Histogram correction, overlayed the 2 pictures and came up with exactly the SAME SCRATCHES. There is absolutely no doubt - these bumps are from frame 34. The scratches are a forensic fingerprint, like the marks on a projectile that can only come from one gun.

      As to the origins of the bumps, I can only guess. They could be the fingers (or fingerprints) of the lab technician who developed the negative. I had that happen to me back in the old days when I was developing film myself in the lab. If they're the bushes compared to a contemporary photo earlier in this thread, that would be a real wonder - I know of no bush that remains the same size & shape over half a century.

      (https://i.ibb.co/mtpPXzR/Dyatlov-3-heads-Collage2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/J2ZSykc)

      To me: I'm an image analysis & software engineer, I write algorithms and software.
      Cheers, Henning

      Excellent discovery, but one which, as ever with the DPI, throws up many more questions.

      While the lower part of the image, the 3 (or is it 5) 'heads' appears to be the same, down to a scratch here and there, the neatly-edged lens flare in the centre of the fuller image would appear to have been replaced with the blinding white-out from elsewhere, and the position of that light, relative to the heads/plants, is now much closer to them. Look at the gap between the heads and the leading edge of the light across both photo's.

      That might suggest it isn't just a crop, but a cut & shut - that the middle of the full image has been discarded and the top and bottom brought nearer together. Intriguing as to why that was done if so.

      Alternatively, and this would be my preference, it may be that two separate exposures were taken by the same camera, which appear the same if the hiker heads/bushes are used as your only reference point, because they do not move, but the light does between exposures, and a shutter or lens fault places marks in the same position.

      I have to say though, that although this thread has been extremely intriguing, I have my doubts Yuri K would go to the trouble of setting up a tripod on a windswept mountain and attempt to take a prolonged 'b' exposure, doing so half-dressed, without centre framing his subject and focussing, especially when the rest of his photographs reveal he was by far the best photographer. And then we are to accept Semyon did a lot better without a tripod.  Also, since the camera and tripod were found back in the tent, why secure your photographic equipment and not take what you needed to survive.

      My own enhanced version of Frame 34 concerned itself with the shape of the light source, not the heads. The light in the middle is as Marley suggests, a lens flare. The source of light is broadly similar in shape and angle to that of Semyon's two 'eagle' images, a snowflake on the lens likely the eagle shape.


      (https://i.ibb.co/WP7CwB9/Frame-34.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NmfRPWh)

      (https://i.ibb.co/ZxTD3Ps/7-Eagle-1-Light.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GRPSXLw)

      (https://i.ibb.co/TtLcZpq/8-Eagle-2-light.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sqHjhkJ)
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 14, 2020, 03:52:36 PM
      ..stuff about the helicopter...

      I feel a little silly asking this, but I don't quite follow you and I want to understand.  If the hazy, white shape is a helicopter, why is the whole thing glowing white in the picture?  Is a searchlight shining on it? Are there, perhaps, two aircraft present, and one has the spotlight on the other?  Is it possible for a light inside the helicopter to shine through the whole thing and make it sort of glow?  You could probably convince me that the shape is the same as a helicopter shape; I can't argue because I don't know a thing about aircraft.  But I'm having a hard time imagining how the picture came to look like that.  When a car drives up on a dark night, you don't see the whole outline of the car--just the headlights.  When you come upon a house at night, you don't see the outline of the whole house unless there is another light source--just the windows to rooms which have lights inside.  In the night sky, I can only identify an airplane by the blinking lights on the wings or tail or whatever--I never can see the whole plane.  I don't understand how the whole helicopter body showed up in the photo.

      I mentioned how flares may have been dropped to provide a source of lighting underneath. This brightly burning light, intended to illuminate a wide search area, far exceeding the directional abilities of a search light, could either be a hand flare dropped to the ground, or one discharged on a parachute where it floats down. This may also explain the burning to some tree tops said to be observed by the recovery team.

      (https://i.ibb.co/8bxFxfS/maxresdefault.jpg) (https://ibb.co/W0zSzMY)

      (https://i.ibb.co/Zdgdsb2/th.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

      Aahhh--I understand now.  Thanks!
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 14, 2020, 04:04:44 PM
      It's just occurred to me, if YuriK placed himself at the end of the tent (furthest from the entrance) he could use the gap in the tent normally used by the stove chimney as a viewing portal. The orientation of the tent probably sheltering the same from the wind and the snow. Then he would have a grand view of the slope down to the valley....
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 15, 2020, 12:24:20 AM
      Excellent discovery, but one which, as ever with the DPI, throws up many more questions.

      While the lower part of the image, the 3 (or is it 5) 'heads' appears to be the same, down to a scratch here and there, the neatly-edged lens flare in the centre of the fuller image would appear to have been replaced with the blinding white-out from elsewhere, and the position of that light, relative to the heads/plants, is now much closer to them. Look at the gap between the heads and the leading edge of the light across both photo's.

      No. The extracted section of frame 34 has been further brightened with Gamma. Eventually, this will cause lighter partes of the image to become white. Valentin Yakimenko probably did this to add drama to the thus altered image. Remember he was trying to explain (in his personal mindset!) what killed his comrades. His angel (or UFO, helicopter, whatever you want to see) frames are subjective interpretations, similar to a religious person who sees the face of Jesus in a toast.

      My own enhanced version of Frame 34 concerned itself with the shape of the light source, not the heads. The light in the middle is as Marley suggests, a lens flare. The source of light is broadly similar in shape and angle to that of Semyon's two 'eagle' images, a snowflake on the lens likely the eagle shape.
      I fully agree that the "eagles" are melting snow flakes or ice crystals. This in my opinion proves the authenticity of the frames, and that they actually show a real light ball in the sky, and not a light source in the lab. The lens flare usually only happens from a very bright light, like the sun. It would not appear from a lamp in the lab.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 15, 2020, 07:34:24 AM
      My own enhanced version of Frame 34 concerned itself with the shape of the light source, not the heads. The light in the middle is as Marley suggests, a lens flare. The source of light is broadly similar in shape and angle to that of Semyon's two 'eagle' images, a snowflake on the lens likely the eagle shape.

      I like the colorization you did - very realistic. While of course a subjective interpretation, it's also my belief that these are authentic images of a fireball. Do you by any chance have the originals to these images, or know where I can get them? I have been looking for them a while, in order to do a more thorough analysis. As I said, image analysis is my field of work, and I have come up with a few more, let me carefully say "interesting", observations, which I am writing a paper about.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 15, 2020, 10:56:35 AM
      It's just occurred to me, if YuriK placed himself at the end of the tent (furthest from the entrance) he could use the gap in the tent normally used by the stove chimney as a viewing portal. The orientation of the tent probably sheltering the same from the wind and the snow. Then he would have a grand view of the slope down to the valley....
      So this could explain why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind? Not normal procedure?

      Also the "three heads/shrubs" might be tent fabric at the base of the "chimney hole", the intense light penetrating the weave.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Marley on November 15, 2020, 10:58:02 AM
      Aha
      I just experienced the biggest aha-erlebnis in the universe. Thanks to @Hennning’s post I know what the “shrubheads” are!!! At least, I think I do. (Try to show some modesty here, Marley excuseme)
      And no, I never wanted to suggest that the shrubs in the contemporary photo are the same as the (alleged) ones in the “three shrubs” photograph. I’m a bit shocked that my post can be read that way.  shock1 Henning, I assure you, that thought never, ever crossed my mind.  lol2

      As for your proposition that the “Three heads/shrubs” photograph is a cut-out & blow-up of Frame no. 34 I think you may be right. I actually believe you are totally right. And I found something while doing my research on Frame no. 34 that very much supports your theory.

      Multiple images

      There are at least three images of Frame no. 34 circulating on the interwebs. Sorry, internet. wink1 There’s the no frills version I used when writing about it. There’s a version with a big scratch, or hair on it and there’s also an image with the shrubs, heads, thingies at the bottom.

      Negatives
      We also have a photograph of the negatives:
      https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-film1.jpg

      Enlarged:
      (https://i.ibb.co/wN1RyY5/negative-frame34-vergroot.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)

      It’s a 35 mm film. That means that a frame is 8 sprocket holes (the holes on the edge of the film) wide. The red line (my addition) marks the frame’s edge. The black sharpie lines are an upside down “31 dash” someone wrote on the sleeve. It’s not part of picture.

      Where are the shrubheads?
      As you can see there is nothing in the southeast (bottom right hand) corner. Yeah, I know. It’s a photo of a negative inside a sleeve so it’s not a high quality image, to put it mildly. But it does look quite empty there, doesn’t it? And that’s the place where the shrubheads are supposed to be. If you accept the premise that the “Three (shrub)heads” photograph is an enlargement of Frame no. 34.

      Another image
      Here are some other versions of Frame no. 34. https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34. I have no idea who made these and how. But there’s something very interesting about the image presented as the negative of Frame no. 34.


      (https://i.ibb.co/Qc7hfrS/Dyatlov-pass-frame-34-01.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4fwC7Pv)
       

      Below the… hair I think it is, you can suddenly see these three “thingies”. Our shrubheads. So where did the hair come from, and the shrubbies?

      Sprocket holes
      I don’t know who’s hair it is but those thingies are sprocket holes. When I realized that it was my big aha moment. This is not a digital version of a negative. It’s a sloppy photograph of a bit of film, showing the top of some sprocket holes. Once you see it, it can’t be unseen. These are sprocket holes people!
       
      (https://i.ibb.co/YWW9XN2/sprocketholes-34.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X44BDWX)
       
      (https://i.ibb.co/2MpXFRf/negative-frame34-vergroot-groen-jpg.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

      I totally rely on you @Henning to get the details right. That’s your expertise. I very much look forward to your analysis.




      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 15, 2020, 11:43:10 AM
      Sprocket holes
      I don’t know who’s hair it is but those thingies are sprocket holes. When I realized that it was my big aha moment. This is not a digital version of a negative. It’s a sloppy photograph of a bit of film, showing the top of some sprocket holes. Once you see it, it can’t be unseen. These are sprocket holes people!

      I totally rely on you @Henning to get the details right. That’s your expertise. I very much look forward to your analysis.

      First of all, thank you for your kind words.

      Excellent observation, however I have 3 objections:
      1. The 3 blobs or fingers are round, while the film transportation holes are square.
      2. They're all on a close to perfect horizontal line. So where are the other ones that should be to the left of them?
      3. When a negative is developed and enlarged, these holes are never part of the image. It would have been a very improper development method, or with very bad equipment. Not really plausible in a foresic investigation.

      So until we find a better explanation, I would vote for fingerprints or fingers of the lab technician. If we get a little more thechnical, they could be projections of the holes on the frame behind, when the film was still rolled up in the camera. Being the last frame, it would make sense that only half of it was touching the film roll behind it.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Marley on November 15, 2020, 12:00:49 PM
      3. When a negative is developed and enlarged, these holes are never part of the image. It would have been a very improper development method, or with very bad equipment. Not really plausible in a foresic investigation.

      Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 15, 2020, 12:46:22 PM
      Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?

      Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. If I insulted you in any way, accept my apology.

      What I was saying was, that I never saw any photo where theses negative holes were part of the developed photo. When a negative is projected onto photo paper in the dark room, the frame is in a perfect fit inside the tray of the projector, similar to a slide projector. Otherwise the photo would turn out blurred at the edges. I don't know of any projectors that would make this kind of mistake.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Marley on November 15, 2020, 01:53:11 PM
      Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?

      Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. If I insulted you in any way, accept my apology.

      What I was saying was, that I never saw any photo where theses negative holes were part of the developed photo. When a negative is projected onto photo paper in the dark room, the frame is in a perfect fit inside the tray of the projector, similar to a slide projector. Otherwise the photo would turn out blurred at the edges. I don't know of any projectors that would make this kind of mistake.

      You didn't insult me. And I apologize for leaving that impression. We're good. As far as I'm concerned. grin1
      It turns out I'm no good at explaining my thoughts. But this is what I think:

      . You have a strip of old skool negatives;
      . You take a camera (new skool, digital) and make pictures of the frames;
      . You present the digital photos of the negatives as the real thing;
      . Turn them from a negative into a positive;
      . But they are not prints;
      . They are photos of a filmstrip;
      . And if you take a photo of a filmstrip you might catch a sprocket hole here and there as well.

      That makes sense, right?

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on November 15, 2020, 03:10:00 PM
      . You have a strip of old skool negatives;
      . You take a camera (new skool, digital) and make pictures of the frames;
      . You present the digital photos of the negatives as the real thing;
      . Turn them from a negative into a positive;
      . But they are not prints;
      . They are photos of a filmstrip;
      . And if you take a photo of a filmstrip you might catch a sprocket hole here and there as well.

      That makes sense, right?

      Yeah, makes sense. But that's not how it works. To make a photo from a negative film strip, you need a light source behind the strip, otherwise you will only get a mushed dark blob, which will not convert into a positive image, no matter what software you use. I converted all my old negatives and slides once, using a slide scanner. There is no other way. So I doubt your scenario somewhat. It would also not explain why there are not more "bushes", and why they are round instead of square in the first place.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 15, 2020, 03:26:14 PM
      I'm rooting for the chimney hole theory!
       lol4
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 15, 2020, 07:09:06 PM
      Interesting!  I follow your explanation, I think, so far as it goes.  Does this mean you suspect someone intentionally made a blow-up print of that particular part of the negative?  Or is there another reason the frame might be cut?

      In my opinion: Reducing the amount of information in a photo (cutting, zooming) can only have one reason: to create a confirmation bias, i.e. to influence a certain opinion. Valentin Yakimenko, who allegedly created the Zolotaryov album, was very much into the "fallen angel/higher level demonic involvement" theory. So he found some scratches, ice crystals and dust particles and enhanced them to the size of spaceships and daemons. Why he chose to sneak in frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera...? Obviously to underscrore his point.

      If you don't follow this psycho-religious stuff, you can basically ignore the whole collection, except two. The only frames that seem original are the two "eagle" frames showing a light blob. If someone can find the original, unaltered frames from Zolotaryov's camera, I would be quite happy. I have not been able to find them.

      Thanks for responding--makes perfect sense to me.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 15, 2020, 07:13:25 PM
      I'm rooting for the chimney hole theory!
       lol4
      Haha! Me too.  There's something rather artistically satisfying about not setting up the stove and then using the chimney hole for the tripod camera. It sounds like something a clever, corny, mischievous college guy would think of doing.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 16, 2020, 04:20:50 AM



      I hereby rename the photo as the "three curls".  thanky1


      More seriously they really do seem to have erected the tent the wrong way round? Surely the entrance facing east sheltered from the wind and down the slope would have been considerably more comfortable? But they reversed it to create a protected viewing platform?


      Another thought is that we know they didn't set off that day until 3pm? They had a sleep in to prepare for staying up late? Maybe all night?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: MDGross on November 16, 2020, 07:34:21 AM
      Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 16, 2020, 08:38:47 AM
      Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.
      Hi there, no i'd suggest that the plan was to observe and photograph some lights that looked innocent and harmless 1 or 2km away. But the blizzard that they clearly photographed as they ascended and pitched their tent was turning up the "electrical volume" like a horizontal thundercloud -  https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/thunder-and-lightning/what-causes-thunder-lightning, and that night they experienced electrical phenomenon at a scale far beyond what they had observed on previous nights.
      That or a military exercise with a mystery clean up that left no trace and ignored several bodies of course.

      Whatever i think an excellent case can be made for them electing to be there in that spot to observe and photograph something :-
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 16, 2020, 03:45:37 PM
      I'm loving it! Marley's expert post is describing my belief that these photos are genuine. My favourite theory is that they deliberately elected to pitch the tent at that location to photograph these lights (which they had already observed on previous nights) with Igor recording his doubts in the group diary the night before. If so then this rules out military ordnance of course. If you then also rule out YuriK's peculiar third degree burns resulting from a modest campfire then you're left with........ electricity.

      What  !  ?  They risked their lives to photograph Electricity.


      What you do not do after ascending 1000ft up a mountain on skis in a raging blizzard carrying a heavy backpack and clearing a metre of snow to pitch your tent  with an apex 1metre high and then sharing it with 8 other individuals who are climbing over you to get outside for night time toilet trips is......... setup a camera on a tripod for no purpose.


       setup a camera on a tripod for no purpose  !  ? 

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 16, 2020, 04:03:25 PM
      Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.
      Hi there, no i'd suggest that the plan was to observe and photograph some lights that looked innocent and harmless 1 or 2km away. But the blizzard that they clearly photographed as they ascended and pitched their tent was turning up the "electrical volume" like a horizontal thundercloud -  https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/thunder-and-lightning/what-causes-thunder-lightning, and that night they experienced electrical phenomenon at a scale far beyond what they had observed on previous nights.
      That or a military exercise with a mystery clean up that left no trace and ignored several bodies of course.

      Whatever i think an excellent case can be made for them electing to be there in that spot to observe and photograph something :-
      • They clearly changed the route and the plan the night before (decided to build the labaz).
      • Igor records some misgivings in the diary about being on the ridge.
      • They leave very late in the day strongly suggesting the plan was not to cover distance but to just make that ascent.
      • They pitch the tent in a strange orientation. 180 degrees from what would be the obvious one?
      • They put a camera on a tripod in a crowded tent.
      • The casefiles suggest Semyon was outside with his camera when the event happened (think about that, at night in a snowstorm and he's wearing a camera around his neck??)

      So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ? 
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 16, 2020, 04:05:02 PM
      Marley - A brilliant piece of technical and deductive reasoning.  Well done.   okey1  Based on your analysis, Krivo would have needed some time to set up his camera on the tripod correct?  This would imply that either:
      1.  He knew there was going to be something worth taking a photo of?
      Or
      2.  There was more going on (in the sky?) Prior to frame 34 that prompted him to set up the camera and allow sufficient time to do this before he shot frame 34?

      Given that he only had three shots left on the film, my thoughts tend to toward point 2, but could be wrong.  If he had expected some kind of show, would you not ensure you have plenty of shots available?  What are your thoughts on this?

      Refresh my memory, but wasn't the camera and tripod found in the tent? 

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 17, 2020, 01:37:56 AM

      So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ?


      I can't give it to the nearest minute.  quiet1


      Maybe it was decided before they started? These are university people, they'll be aware of mansi culture and legends, pilots reporting strange lights in this region. Semyon's boast that he would return from this trip "famous" fits with this narrative.



      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 18, 2020, 01:47:36 PM
      It won't be the tops of sprocket holes peeping through. The 'heads' feature is coincidentally in line with some of them, but is just about visible above the tops of the sprocket holes on the image of the sleeved negative, as semi-transparent blobs (which then print black).

      The image detail actually descends lower than what are being taken to be sprocket holes, but the negative doesn't show that. That can happen with negatives, if the take-up spool tensioning is wonky, but doesn't apply here. Also we should see the tops of the rest of the sprocket holes, even if they gradually reduced through a misaligned negative.

      Colourised version:
      (https://i.ibb.co/1JxTnby/Photo500452-Enhanced.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G3jRJFY)

      The vegetation theory would certainly answer the anomaly of why the 'heads' are broadly all the same height when the hikers were not. But photo's of the mountain peak in summer reveal light vegetation of ground cover grass and taller wild flower annuals, there's not much evidence of clumps of hardy perennials which can overwinter. The photo of snowbound grassy hillocks on the Dyatlov Pass may have been taken at a much lower elevation.

      Looking up from the tent site:
      (https://i.ibb.co/56JrMGv/11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9Ndb8c2)

      I doubt it's fingerpints either, not unless a newborn baby handled the film, not only with tiny tips, but fingers so close together they spanned only part of a 35mm frame.

      I will offer another theory, which could well be wrong. Because the 'heads' are in line with the sprocket holes and this only affects the final exposure, near the end of the film, it may be film loading damage.

      The film end is slid into the developing tank reel, through slots at the sides, until the film sprocket holes begin to engage with two teeth inside. One side of the reel is then twisted, rotating in the middle, and a ratchet system draws the film into the centre of the reel as a spiral. All of this has to be done in total darkness, or with the film cassette and developing tank inside a lightproof changing bag. It's very tricky, and sometimes requires several attempts, something made worse if any of the equipment is worn.

      If the reel rubbed near the sprocket holes while repeatedly trying to engage, or the film is twisted, cross-threaded between opposing teeth, it potentially could wear off the film emulsion near the sprocket holes. That then translates into a near transparent negative area, which images black on a positive (print).

      But I could be wrong, and it was a set of little grey men who immediately rushed the cameraman.

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 18, 2020, 02:05:26 PM
      Excellent discovery, but one which, as ever with the DPI, throws up many more questions.

      While the lower part of the image, the 3 (or is it 5) 'heads' appears to be the same, down to a scratch here and there, the neatly-edged lens flare in the centre of the fuller image would appear to have been replaced with the blinding white-out from elsewhere, and the position of that light, relative to the heads/plants, is now much closer to them. Look at the gap between the heads and the leading edge of the light across both photo's.

      No. The extracted section of frame 34 has been further brightened with Gamma. Eventually, this will cause lighter partes of the image to become white. Valentin Yakimenko probably did this to add drama to the thus altered image. Remember he was trying to explain (in his personal mindset!) what killed his comrades. His angel (or UFO, helicopter, whatever you want to see) frames are subjective interpretations, similar to a religious person who sees the face of Jesus in a toast.

      My own enhanced version of Frame 34 concerned itself with the shape of the light source, not the heads. The light in the middle is as Marley suggests, a lens flare. The source of light is broadly similar in shape and angle to that of Semyon's two 'eagle' images, a snowflake on the lens likely the eagle shape.
      I fully agree that the "eagles" are melting snow flakes or ice crystals. This in my opinion proves the authenticity of the frames, and that they actually show a real light ball in the sky, and not a light source in the lab. The lens flare usually only happens from a very bright light, like the sun. It would not appear from a lamp in the lab.

      Increasing brightness to that degree, to expand a lens flare until in near engulfs the image, would also bleach out the scratches and even the heads, as in this quick example:

      (https://i.ibb.co/sQsCfJJ/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-34a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wCp7krr)

      It could be done, by selectively editing a highlighted part of the image and leaving the margin untouched, but what a fraud if so.

      It probably is the same image, but on the other hand if two cameramen were stood next to one another photographing the same scene the foregound would be broadly the same in each image and the different intensity of the light source explained by the momentary difference in the timing of the exposures. To prove things we need to see Semyon's strip of negatives.

      If the two images were then scanned using the same scanner/negative carrier, and it had scratches to the glass, that could operate like a watermark transferring to both low-resolution image margins.

      Unfortunately I don't have access to any original images.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 18, 2020, 02:07:22 PM
      double posted
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 19, 2020, 04:50:50 PM

      So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ?


      I can't give it to the nearest minute.  quiet1


      Maybe it was decided before they started? These are university people, they'll be aware of mansi culture and legends, pilots reporting strange lights in this region. Semyon's boast that he would return from this trip "famous" fits with this narrative.

      Well no one can give it to the nearest minute. But if we are supposed to believe that they deliberately went up the Mountain to set up the Tent and photo lights in the Sky there must have been a point lower down the slopes where they decided to do that. But the Sky is big, surely they wouldnt have needed to go as far as they did if it was just a question of taking photos.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 20, 2020, 04:13:32 AM
      With 1959 camera technology getting close might help a lot.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: MDGross on November 20, 2020, 11:07:01 AM
      If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 20, 2020, 03:20:20 PM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 21, 2020, 09:18:26 AM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 21, 2020, 11:04:46 AM
      If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.
      A reasonable point but this is the Soviet Union in 1959. All travel requires permission and to deviate the route from a filed plan even by a mile could raise suspicions perhaps with undesired consequences (trip cancelled?). Also Igor was attempting to qualify as a master of sports so stunts like this could be prejudicial. Much better perhaps to keep it quiet and if they get some photographic evidence of scientific importance that this would excuse the infringement. If they don't no one has to know.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on November 21, 2020, 12:16:31 PM
      If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.
      A reasonable point but this is the Soviet Union in 1959. All travel requires permission and to deviate the route from a filed plan even by a mile could raise suspicions perhaps with undesired consequences (trip cancelled?). Also Igor was attempting to qualify as a master of sports so stunts like this could be prejudicial. Much better perhaps to keep it quiet and if they get some photographic evidence of scientific importance that this would excuse the infringement. If they don't no one has to know.

      I would love to know how Igor settled on this particular route.  The one that he initially intended, I mean.  Was it a standard route that had been done before?  Was it an area he knew?  Was there input from the other hikers?  Not implying that there's any clue within his choice; I'm just curious.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 22, 2020, 03:59:18 PM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

      Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 23, 2020, 02:48:21 AM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

      Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

      Regards

      Star man


      Well clearly he didn't and it's not important? I'd much rather be discussing why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind. Imo that's a smoking gun.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: MDGross on November 23, 2020, 07:12:24 AM
      It is strange to pitch the tent with the entrance facing the wind. Perhaps it was thought that when you step outside to relieve yourself, it's better to step on an up slope. Should you slip and fall, you'd fall back through the entrance into the tent. If the entrance faced the other direction and you slipped, you'd slide or roll down the slope. Just a thought...
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 23, 2020, 05:00:34 PM
      With 1959 camera technology getting close might help a lot.

      Actually some of those old Russian Cameras were very good. I had some Russian Optical equipment back in the 1960s / 70's.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 23, 2020, 05:02:32 PM
      If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.

      Many things are missing though. How do we know that some of the Diaries were not spirited away.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 23, 2020, 05:04:01 PM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man

      A very good point.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 23, 2020, 05:07:08 PM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

      Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

      Regards

      Star man


      Well clearly he didn't and it's not important? I'd much rather be discussing why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind. Imo that's a smoking gun.

      But its very important. After all we are supposed to think that the Dyatlov Group went to the very exposed position to pitch their Tent and take Photos of Lights in the Sky. So they would want to be fully equipped for that.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 23, 2020, 05:09:16 PM
      It is strange to pitch the tent with the entrance facing the wind. Perhaps it was thought that when you step outside to relieve yourself, it's better to step on an up slope. Should you slip and fall, you'd fall back through the entrance into the tent. If the entrance faced the other direction and you slipped, you'd slide or roll down the slope. Just a thought...

      Directions of Winds can change. We dont know the exact time that they pitched their Tent or the Wind speed and direction at the time.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 24, 2020, 03:29:31 AM
      If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

      Regards

      Star man
      Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

      Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

      Regards

      Star man


      Well clearly he didn't and it's not important? I'd much rather be discussing why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind. Imo that's a smoking gun.

      But its very important. After all we are supposed to think that the Dyatlov Group went to the very exposed position to pitch their Tent and take Photos of Lights in the Sky. So they would want to be fully equipped for that.
      Maybe he was planning to do just that but events overtook his plans. Maybe he was going to have something to eat first. Maybe he planned to get an hours sleep before an all night vigil. Lots of maybes either way.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 24, 2020, 02:01:44 PM
      Yep there are plenty of maybe's put into the Dyatlov Mystery.  I guess that the maybe's have to make up for the lack of evidence.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 27, 2020, 04:30:46 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 27, 2020, 05:00:42 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on November 28, 2020, 08:34:09 AM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.


      Lens flares can also be caused by artificial lights, not just the Sun. It requires a light source which is bright enough, relative to the rest of the scene, and at an angle to the lens, which is made up of numerous pieces of ground glass, which the bright light then reflects off. A torch could do the same on a dark night.

      Modern camera lenses have multicoated optics to minimise this, or the photographer will use a lens hood.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 28, 2020, 04:14:43 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      And where exactly is the bright light supposed to be. Is it in the Sky with the Sun. If its in the Sky and its that bright then why go to all the trouble of pitching a Tent in such an exposed position. It could have been pitched in a lower more protected area.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on November 29, 2020, 04:07:41 AM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      And where exactly is the bright light supposed to be. Is it in the Sky with the Sun. If its in the Sky and its that bright then why go to all the trouble of pitching a Tent in such an exposed position. It could have been pitched in a lower more protected area.


      Not in a snowstorm with visibility less than 100metres?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on November 30, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      And where exactly is the bright light supposed to be. Is it in the Sky with the Sun. If its in the Sky and its that bright then why go to all the trouble of pitching a Tent in such an exposed position. It could have been pitched in a lower more protected area.


      Not in a snowstorm with visibility less than 100metres?

      But surely if there is a snow storm then it makes no difference anyway. The storm is likely to affect lower and higher ground.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 30, 2020, 03:18:45 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      It looks like something bright, there is no mistake there.  Can the image be cleaned up?  If there are experts on this type of film, or camera, is it possible to enhance the image? 

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on November 30, 2020, 03:23:31 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      And where exactly is the bright light supposed to be. Is it in the Sky with the Sun. If its in the Sky and its that bright then why go to all the trouble of pitching a Tent in such an exposed position. It could have been pitched in a lower more protected area.


      Not in a snowstorm with visibility less than 100metres?

      But surely if there is a snow storm then it makes no difference anyway. The storm is likely to affect lower and higher ground.

      Good point.  I think though that the key point is that Marley's analysis suggests frame 34 is a deliberate and planned shot of something and could hold clues to what happened to the hikers. 

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 02, 2020, 01:12:39 PM
      If Marley's analysis is correct, then the key points are:

      1.  Frame 34 is not an accident, and maybe related to the event.
      2.  Krivo thought it necessary and took the time to set up his camera and tripod to take the shot.
      3. After taking frame 34, its possible that the camera was knocked over damaging the filter. It may ha e been damaged and removed before frame 34 though?

      Its debatable whether they deliberately camped there to take the photographs, but its possible.

      So what did Krivo take a photograph of?

      Regards

      Star man


      A bright light, bright enough to create effects that normally only the sun can achieve.

      And where exactly is the bright light supposed to be. Is it in the Sky with the Sun. If its in the Sky and its that bright then why go to all the trouble of pitching a Tent in such an exposed position. It could have been pitched in a lower more protected area.


      Not in a snowstorm with visibility less than 100metres?

      But surely if there is a snow storm then it makes no difference anyway. The storm is likely to affect lower and higher ground.

      Good point.  I think though that the key point is that Marley's analysis suggests frame 34 is a deliberate and planned shot of something and could hold clues to what happened to the hikers. 

      Regards

      Star man

      Well there is that old saying, every picture tells a story. And also in the Dyatlov Case maybe its a question of, every missing picture tells a story.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: GKM on December 06, 2020, 02:57:30 AM
      My apologies if this question has been asked and answered. Has a professional lab ever reviewed these photos? Studied them in a professional manner by men and women trained to do so?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 06, 2020, 05:03:57 AM
      My apologies if this question has been asked and answered. Has a professional lab ever reviewed these photos? Studied them in a professional manner by men and women trained to do so?


      Not as far as i know (remember that we're at some distance from what happens in Russia). We don't even have all the negatives online so questions wrt magnification are unanswered, e.g. just what is the scale of plane2?


      Having said that some of the posters here seem quite knowledgeable, but forced to work with limited access to the original materials of course. The concensus seems to be that Eagle is a genuine photo of an aerial light emitting object, possibly a helicopter searchlight (which curiously manages to not illuminate the helicopter even though the ground and trees are covered in snow which reflects light!) or something more exotic. Yuri K's #34 splits opinion, ditto Rustem's.


      My personal (non image expert) view is that explaining several shots as accidental exposures is possible but somewhat improbable and if eagle is genuine then the balance of probability is that they all are, but i am biased of course.


      Currently I like the theory that #34 was taken by YuriK on the tripod in the tent and the three heads are the bottom of the hole cut in the canvas for the stove's chimney. Then the tent was hit by lightning which passed through his leg giving him a third degree burn and caused him to snap the tent pole and break the filter. In great pain he panicked and slashed the tent to escape probably accidentally cutting YuriD's hand in the confusion. If the tent then started glowing with st elmo's fire then you have sufficient reason for them to fear returning to the tent for more clothing. Plus i would suspect other electrical fireworks as well. I think that area produces electrical charge horizontally in the same way that a thundercloud produces it vertically. Night fall strengthened the production via katabatic winds turning up the "volume". Digging through a metre of insulating snow created an earth. That's why the snow on the tent and surrounding it was so hard the area was repeatedly warmed (by electric discharge) and refrozen over the next three weeks. Then on the descent one group got hit by lightning or explosive ball lightning. Basically they camped in the middle of an electrical storm that normally only occurs in tropical clouds at altitude.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 06, 2020, 05:13:31 AM
      Imagine camping in the middle of this :-
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vr_VTqs1eE
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: MDGross on December 06, 2020, 07:45:36 AM
      Your scenario is well thought out and offers good details, Nigel. It's interesting to me that according to the weather map that pops up in the video, the lightning storm is near my hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska. I remember growing up watching severe yet fascinating lightning storms. One time I saw lightning hit a railroad track with a very loud explosion. It scared the s**t out of me. If such a lightning event happened to the Dyatlov group, I can understand their fear.
      Tents don't attract lightning, but if Yuri K's metal tripod was poking out of the top of the tent, it would be a lightning rod for sure. I also like your scenario because in fear and panic you are not thinking rationally. I always believe that the hikers acted irrationally and had no thought of dressing more warmly.
      Besides a lightning storm, I feel the other contenders for irrational action, are infrasound and toxic fume from an exploded missile. But the lightning storm scenario checks off the most boxes.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 06, 2020, 08:48:03 AM
      Hi thanks for your thoughts but you're mistaken wrt the metal argument. Lightning conductors are made of conducting metal to negate the build up of electrical charge in the atmosphere above. But if they are not there then the risk is that charge build up will become so strong that it will pass through the building to the ground (typically with the assistance of rain) causing huge damage. That's why it's dangerous to stand under a tree, because they don't contain metal. The wet tall tree will attract lightning which can jump across to you as it seeks a path to earth with injury or death.


      In this case the tree, is a bamboo pole probably dampened with condensation from seven bodies and YuriK is too close because he's manning the camera.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 06, 2020, 08:49:06 AM
      P.S. from memory the homemade tripod was also made of bamboo.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: MDGross on December 06, 2020, 12:52:01 PM
      Yes, you are correct about lightning rods. Serious case of my brain cramping.
      Didn't realize the tripod was made of bamboo. I guess it could fold into smaller pieces so that it could fit into a backpack.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Vietnamka on December 06, 2020, 05:19:05 PM
      My apologies if this question has been asked and answered. Has a professional lab ever reviewed these photos? Studied them in a professional manner by men and women trained to do so?
      Not in lab, but  one guy was doing experiments trying to get a similar image under different conditions (he is an engineer in the USA). Here are the results in russian  (he  left the topic long time ago)
      https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=1258.0







      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 07, 2020, 04:53:35 AM
      There's a whole chapter and appendix on it. You even get to see Plane 3!


      https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01MFBW8W0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 07, 2020, 02:49:49 PM
      My apologies if this question has been asked and answered. Has a professional lab ever reviewed these photos? Studied them in a professional manner by men and women trained to do so?

      Almost certainly studied by the Government of the former USSR. And dont forget the missing Cameras and missing Film.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: RidgeWatcher on December 11, 2020, 10:13:17 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 12, 2020, 12:40:53 AM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?


      He'd have to climb over 8 sleeping people to get out? And then again when returning? Looks like Semyon and Nicolai were handling the external stuff?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 12, 2020, 02:48:57 AM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 12, 2020, 01:22:57 PM
      Just to add here, in reference to the idea of Yuri K taking Frame 34 through the tent flue hole, that this may explain the black circular masking to the left of the frame, and also how the rest of the image is 'clean', free from swirling snow or even snow on the lens if taken outside.

      But that doesn't explain why Yuri K didn't centre frame and focus his shot, and I believe that may be because he wasn't looking through the viewfinder to compose it, he had simply raised his tripod/camera up into the tent apex, like a selfie stick, and then reached up to press the shutter, then hurriedly retracted it before there was any glinting reflection off the camera lens, explaining the damage to the filter.

      I believe, as with Semyon's two Eagle Light photo's, that Frame 34 is the same thing; the headlight of a helicopter, that is what is floating down in the image, and it approaches from the left, which equates to downhill.

      The hikers had a choice, make themselves known to the military and spend half the night proving their identities and permissions to be there, and show they were not harbouring escapees inside the tent, all of which likely involves being brought down off the ridge, or stage their tent as abandoned/uninhabitably flattened and hide in their trench.

      Given that their IDs remained in their rucksacks, and Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent (suggesting the hikers placed the snow there, and they wouldn't waste time and risk exposure doing that and not take what they needed to survive if felling the tent at the same time as leaving), everything suggests to me that they hid, felling the tent as quickly as they could, leaving the two ends standing, and that is potentially how Frame 34 was taken.

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 12, 2020, 03:30:33 PM
      Just to add here, in reference to the idea of Yuri K taking Frame 34 through the tent flue hole, that this may explain the black circular masking to the left of the frame, and also how the rest of the image is 'clean', free from swirling snow or even snow on the lens if taken outside.

      But that doesn't explain why Yuri K didn't centre frame and focus his shot, and I believe that may be because he wasn't looking through the viewfinder to compose it, he had simply raised his tripod/camera up into the tent apex, like a selfie stick, and then reached up to press the shutter, then hurriedly retracted it before there was any glinting reflection off the camera lens, explaining the damage to the filter.

      I believe, as with Semyon's two Eagle Light photo's, that Frame 34 is the same thing; the headlight of a helicopter, that is what is floating down in the image, and it approaches from the left, which equates to downhill.

      The hikers had a choice, make themselves known to the military and spend half the night proving their identities and permissions to be there, and show they were not harbouring escapees inside the tent, all of which likely involves being brought down off the ridge, or stage their tent as abandoned/uninhabitably flattened and hide in their trench.

      Given that their IDs remained in their rucksacks, and Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent (suggesting the hikers placed the snow there, and they wouldn't waste time and risk exposure doing that and not take what they needed to survive if felling the tent at the same time as leaving), everything suggests to me that they hid, felling the tent as quickly as they could, leaving the two ends standing, and that is potentially how Frame 34 was taken.

      Maybe we are looking at frame 34 tge wrong way? Turn it 90 degrees clockwise.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 12, 2020, 05:01:44 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 12, 2020, 05:06:46 PM
      Just to add here, in reference to the idea of Yuri K taking Frame 34 through the tent flue hole, that this may explain the black circular masking to the left of the frame, and also how the rest of the image is 'clean', free from swirling snow or even snow on the lens if taken outside.

      But that doesn't explain why Yuri K didn't centre frame and focus his shot, and I believe that may be because he wasn't looking through the viewfinder to compose it, he had simply raised his tripod/camera up into the tent apex, like a selfie stick, and then reached up to press the shutter, then hurriedly retracted it before there was any glinting reflection off the camera lens, explaining the damage to the filter.

      I believe, as with Semyon's two Eagle Light photo's, that Frame 34 is the same thing; the headlight of a helicopter, that is what is floating down in the image, and it approaches from the left, which equates to downhill.

      The hikers had a choice, make themselves known to the military and spend half the night proving their identities and permissions to be there, and show they were not harbouring escapees inside the tent, all of which likely involves being brought down off the ridge, or stage their tent as abandoned/uninhabitably flattened and hide in their trench.

      Given that their IDs remained in their rucksacks, and Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent (suggesting the hikers placed the snow there, and they wouldn't waste time and risk exposure doing that and not take what they needed to survive if felling the tent at the same time as leaving), everything suggests to me that they hid, felling the tent as quickly as they could, leaving the two ends standing, and that is potentially how Frame 34 was taken.

      So why did the Dyatlov Group leave the Tent not fully clothed and without provisions and walk a mile to the Forest in extremely low temperatures ? And no other footprints were found other than those belonging to the Dyatlov Group.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 13, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 14, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 14, 2020, 04:33:16 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.

      It could explain their behaviour.  Neuro vascular damage.  Reduced level of consciousness.  Pain as their bodies started to shut down. Other Injuries inflicted as WAB describes.  The only difference here is replace infrasound with deadly radiation exposure.  There is no doubt that everyone would be affected by that.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 15, 2020, 01:30:02 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.

      It could explain their behaviour.  Neuro vascular damage.  Reduced level of consciousness.  Pain as their bodies started to shut down. Other Injuries inflicted as WAB describes.  The only difference here is replace infrasound with deadly radiation exposure.  There is no doubt that everyone would be affected by that.

      Regards

      Star man

      But a massive burst of Radiation would leave traces in bodies and materials, especially if it was Neutron Radiation. These traces would easily be detected.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 15, 2020, 03:19:30 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.

      It could explain their behaviour.  Neuro vascular damage.  Reduced level of consciousness.  Pain as their bodies started to shut down. Other Injuries inflicted as WAB describes.  The only difference here is replace infrasound with deadly radiation exposure.  There is no doubt that everyone would be affected by that.

      Regards

      Star man

      But a massive burst of Radiation would leave traces in bodies and materials, especially if it was Neutron Radiation. These traces would easily be detected.


      Traces would not easily be detected, if you don't know what to look for.  Especially, if you have competing causes, hypothermia and radiation, and you think hypothermia to be the obvious cause.   But there should have been evidence in terms of damage to the bodies.  Particularly the first bodies found which had not suffered decomposition.  One clue to look for would be signs of blood infections.  Another, deterioration of the stomach lining.  Another, reddening of the subcutaneous skin layer.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 16, 2020, 12:06:04 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.

      It could explain their behaviour.  Neuro vascular damage.  Reduced level of consciousness.  Pain as their bodies started to shut down. Other Injuries inflicted as WAB describes.  The only difference here is replace infrasound with deadly radiation exposure.  There is no doubt that everyone would be affected by that.

      Regards

      Star man

      But a massive burst of Radiation would leave traces in bodies and materials, especially if it was Neutron Radiation. These traces would easily be detected.


      Traces would not easily be detected, if you don't know what to look for.  Especially, if you have competing causes, hypothermia and radiation, and you think hypothermia to be the obvious cause.   But there should have been evidence in terms of damage to the bodies.  Particularly the first bodies found which had not suffered decomposition.  One clue to look for would be signs of blood infections.  Another, deterioration of the stomach lining.  Another, reddening of the subcutaneous skin layer.

      Regards

      Star man

      Well Iam not a Nuclear Scientist but I believe that if Neutrons penetrate materials including bodies then they have the effect of rendering those materials or bodies Radioactive and therefore easily detected.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 16, 2020, 03:36:16 PM
      If Krivo was anticipating a photo shoot wouldn't he have put some clothes and boots on?

      Maybe he took the photos and then retired to the tent only to realise a short time later that he had and the others had been exposed to deadly radiation which would take a little bit of time before the body starts to shut down?

      Regards
      Star man

      The Autopsies didnt show up any Radiation of such strength to be deadly.

      True.  But, the radiation that would have killed them is the massive burst of neutrons and gamma rays from the detonation itself rather than any radioactive fallout.  If they were in line of sight and not protected by the summit of the mountain, and between 600 to 1200 metres from the point of detonation, they would receive lethal radiation doses in a very short time (a second or two), possibly shorter.  From what I have read, the neutrons can cause some materials themselves to become radioactive afterwards, like zinc.  They would not have been killed by the shock wave at that range.

      Regards

      Star man
      [/quote .

      Still doesnt explain why they fled the Tent the way that they did. And the extraordinary injuries that followed, etc.

      It could explain their behaviour.  Neuro vascular damage.  Reduced level of consciousness.  Pain as their bodies started to shut down. Other Injuries inflicted as WAB describes.  The only difference here is replace infrasound with deadly radiation exposure.  There is no doubt that everyone would be affected by that.

      Regards

      Star man

      But a massive burst of Radiation would leave traces in bodies and materials, especially if it was Neutron Radiation. These traces would easily be detected.


      Traces would not easily be detected, if you don't know what to look for.  Especially, if you have competing causes, hypothermia and radiation, and you think hypothermia to be the obvious cause.   But there should have been evidence in terms of damage to the bodies.  Particularly the first bodies found which had not suffered decomposition.  One clue to look for would be signs of blood infections.  Another, deterioration of the stomach lining.  Another, reddening of the subcutaneous skin layer.

      Regards

      Star man

      Well Iam not a Nuclear Scientist but I believe that if Neutrons penetrate materials including bodies then they have the effect of rendering those materials or bodies Radioactive and therefore easily detected.

      From what I have read, I think you are right.  Neutrons can cause things to become radioactive themselves.  But it also said that certain materials are affected much more than others.  Zinc was one them.  There were some other metals too, but I cant remember which ones.  Will have look again. But the body is mainly water so I don't think that is affected so much.  I am not sure how radioactive a person exposed to something like this would become.  But remember the pathologists, were required to sign documents which may have prevented full disclosure of what they found, and we are still missing the toxicology report.

      The other things I have mentioned are documented effects of exposure.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 18, 2020, 03:09:27 AM
      Massive bursts of radiation, even if from isotopes with a half-life decay lasting only weeks, so spent by the time the recovery crew arrived, would likely penetrate the cameras and expose the films, in much the same way workers at nuclear installations wear film badges to monitor their dose.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 18, 2020, 03:29:00 AM
      Just to add here, in reference to the idea of Yuri K taking Frame 34 through the tent flue hole, that this may explain the black circular masking to the left of the frame, and also how the rest of the image is 'clean', free from swirling snow or even snow on the lens if taken outside.

      But that doesn't explain why Yuri K didn't centre frame and focus his shot, and I believe that may be because he wasn't looking through the viewfinder to compose it, he had simply raised his tripod/camera up into the tent apex, like a selfie stick, and then reached up to press the shutter, then hurriedly retracted it before there was any glinting reflection off the camera lens, explaining the damage to the filter.

      I believe, as with Semyon's two Eagle Light photo's, that Frame 34 is the same thing; the headlight of a helicopter, that is what is floating down in the image, and it approaches from the left, which equates to downhill.

      The hikers had a choice, make themselves known to the military and spend half the night proving their identities and permissions to be there, and show they were not harbouring escapees inside the tent, all of which likely involves being brought down off the ridge, or stage their tent as abandoned/uninhabitably flattened and hide in their trench.

      Given that their IDs remained in their rucksacks, and Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent (suggesting the hikers placed the snow there, and they wouldn't waste time and risk exposure doing that and not take what they needed to survive if felling the tent at the same time as leaving), everything suggests to me that they hid, felling the tent as quickly as they could, leaving the two ends standing, and that is potentially how Frame 34 was taken.

      Maybe we are looking at frame 34 tge wrong way? Turn it 90 degrees clockwise.

      Regards

      Star man

      If the camera is set on a tripod, as found, the top of which connects to a threaded hole in the base of the camera, then the image is horizontal.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 18, 2020, 03:46:13 AM
      Just to add here, in reference to the idea of Yuri K taking Frame 34 through the tent flue hole, that this may explain the black circular masking to the left of the frame, and also how the rest of the image is 'clean', free from swirling snow or even snow on the lens if taken outside.

      But that doesn't explain why Yuri K didn't centre frame and focus his shot, and I believe that may be because he wasn't looking through the viewfinder to compose it, he had simply raised his tripod/camera up into the tent apex, like a selfie stick, and then reached up to press the shutter, then hurriedly retracted it before there was any glinting reflection off the camera lens, explaining the damage to the filter.

      I believe, as with Semyon's two Eagle Light photo's, that Frame 34 is the same thing; the headlight of a helicopter, that is what is floating down in the image, and it approaches from the left, which equates to downhill.

      The hikers had a choice, make themselves known to the military and spend half the night proving their identities and permissions to be there, and show they were not harbouring escapees inside the tent, all of which likely involves being brought down off the ridge, or stage their tent as abandoned/uninhabitably flattened and hide in their trench.

      Given that their IDs remained in their rucksacks, and Igor's torch was found on top of 4 inches of snow on the tent (suggesting the hikers placed the snow there, and they wouldn't waste time and risk exposure doing that and not take what they needed to survive if felling the tent at the same time as leaving), everything suggests to me that they hid, felling the tent as quickly as they could, leaving the two ends standing, and that is potentially how Frame 34 was taken.

      So why did the Dyatlov Group leave the Tent not fully clothed and without provisions and walk a mile to the Forest in extremely low temperatures ? And no other footprints were found other than those belonging to the Dyatlov Group.

      The theory has 3 potential variations, none of which were good for a set of hikers already half-frozen in an estimated -12C inside the tent around 9pm, and -31C wind chill outside of it before this event, with no stove lit and the trench diggers half-dressed. Perhaps they were leaving lighting their stove until bedtime, to ensure it burned through the night, an overhead stove design must've had a limited grate capacity, and then the military search begins at the worst possible moment for them, right at the time when they really needed to light the stove and recover the situation.

      1. They emerge and are seen by the helicopter. Even if the group look young and include women, visually the crew would be suspicious of the older man with this young group, just as people are today, and they may well think he could be one of the escapees. It's perhaps unlikely that in 1959 they had a set of mugshots to refer to, and it's dark and snowing. They cannot land on the slope, but possibly could abseil troops down a rope/rope ladder. Any footprints immediately around the tent would disappear in the blown trench snow, as confirmed by the recovery team. If they cannot set someone down they may somehow communicate to the hikers they must set off immediately and meet them at the forest. Dutifully, they do as they are told, quickly fell their tent, and the effects of the cold see some of them leave unprepared. The military are oblivious to how they were dangerously cold to begin with, without heating inside the tent, and do not expect some of them to arrive at the rendezvous half-dressed. After confirming identities they assume the hikers will overnight in the forest or attempt to return to the tent, and leave the search area.

      2. They successfully hide, in their freezing trench tomb, canvas and snow above them, sagging/pressing down upon them, immobile for possibly an hour, and in that time those who were half-dressed develop hypothermia. Observation and breather holes have already been cut in the canvas, and when the time comes to leave one or two of those worst affected, unseen by the others in the dark under this 'bedspread', possibly panicking, feeling their are suffocating, or confused by the cold, decide to cut their way out in order to stand, as opposed to a 9-person sideways shuffle on the ground, a process to begin with one of them most affected by wind chill near the tent flap. In seconds the tent is destroyed. The group then assemble nearby to decide what to do then. The better dressed leave, and the others, possibly blamed for the situation, and unable to easily and speedily recover what they need from the snow-pit-for-a-tent, follow them without clothing or shoes, and nobody thinks to take an axe due to the amnesiac effects of the cold affecting their brain function. Later, the idea of a return to the tent is to retrieve the things they needed to take.

      (https://i.ibb.co/h242QbK/Photo500316-Enhanced-Colorized.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p4M4Vc3)

      3. They hide, but are rumbled. The military are now highly suspicious of them all. They are forced down off the pass, by threat of gunfire, to rendezvous at the forest where the helicopter will land. They do not care if the hikers have what they need, they are not afforded concern for their welfare. If anyone is set down from the helicopter the tent may be vandalised to avoid an immediate return the moment the helicopter leaves the ridge.

      1 & 3 should require their IDs to be produced, which remained in their rucksacks, which is why I favour 2.


      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 19, 2020, 03:05:00 PM
      Massive bursts of radiation, even if from isotopes with a half-life decay lasting only weeks, so spent by the time the recovery crew arrived, would likely penetrate the cameras and expose the films, in much the same way workers at nuclear installations wear film badges to monitor their dose.

      Good point. Well spotted.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 19, 2020, 04:32:57 PM
      Massive bursts of radiation, even if from isotopes with a half-life decay lasting only weeks, so spent by the time the recovery crew arrived, would likely penetrate the cameras and expose the films, in much the same way workers at nuclear installations wear film badges to monitor their dose.

      It is a good point.  And I had considered and Looked into this.  Most of the lethal radiation blast is neutrons.  That is why it is called a neutron bomb.  Neutrons are not electromagnetic radiation and its unlikely to affect  photographic film much.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: fdrnas on December 20, 2020, 02:10:29 AM
      This is right topic....after processing
      (https://i.ibb.co/4KpNWJT/IMG-20201219-WA0002.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Fmz76nw)
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 20, 2020, 03:10:08 AM
      Massive bursts of radiation, even if from isotopes with a half-life decay lasting only weeks, so spent by the time the recovery crew arrived, would likely penetrate the cameras and expose the films, in much the same way workers at nuclear installations wear film badges to monitor their dose.

      It is a good point.  And I had considered and Looked into this.  Most of the lethal radiation blast is neutrons.  That is why it is called a neutron bomb.  Neutrons are not electromagnetic radiation and its unlikely to affect  photographic film much.

      Regards

      Star man
      The dpi isotope(s) were beta emitters which can affect film - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zt9s2nb/revision/6
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 20, 2020, 04:11:59 PM
      Massive bursts of radiation, even if from isotopes with a half-life decay lasting only weeks, so spent by the time the recovery crew arrived, would likely penetrate the cameras and expose the films, in much the same way workers at nuclear installations wear film badges to monitor their dose.

      It is a good point.  And I had considered and Looked into this.  Most of the lethal radiation blast is neutrons.  That is why it is called a neutron bomb.  Neutrons are not electromagnetic radiation and its unlikely to affect  photographic film much.

      Regards

      Star man
      The dpi isotope(s) were beta emitters which can affect film - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zt9s2nb/revision/6

      The isotopes found on the clothes were beta emitters, which could affect the film except the beta radiation would not be able to penetrate the casing of the cameras.  X-rays or gamma could, but whether the cameras were exposed to high levels of gamma would depend on the range to the detonation, the yield of the device and how much shielding is afforded by the casing of the device.    The radiation would predominantly be neutrons. The hikers would have had to be between 600 and 1200 metres from the detonation to have been affected by the radiation, but not iinjured by the blast.  The detonation could not have been on the side of the mountain they were camped as it is likely that some trees etc would have been knocked over.  This would mean that it had to have been above and beyond the summit.  If the mountain was 20 degrees rising to about 30 then the detonation would have been aerial at about 450 metres elevation from their position and 750 to 800 metres horizontally.  Or there abouts.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 20, 2020, 11:54:49 PM
      Quote from: Star man link=topic=648.msg11570#msg11570

      The isotopes found on the clothes were beta emitters, which could affect the film except the beta radiation would not be able to penetrate the casing of the cameras.


      Agreed except that Semyon's camera was probably waterlogged with contaminated water and it contains the most interesting frames. The consensus is that Eagle is genuine and i personally think Plane2 could be the best of all.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 21, 2020, 01:00:37 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 21, 2020, 03:29:54 PM
      Quote from: Star man link=topic=648.msg11570#msg11570

      The isotopes found on the clothes were beta emitters, which could affect the film except the beta radiation would not be able to penetrate the casing of the cameras.


      Agreed except that Semyon's camera was probably waterlogged with contaminated water and it contains the most interesting frames. The consensus is that Eagle is genuine and i personally think Plane2 could be the best of all.

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 21, 2020, 03:34:32 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 22, 2020, 07:45:21 AM

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man


      Thinking further a lot depends on the orientation of the film canister in the camera. Could be no water, no radiation.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 22, 2020, 03:54:05 PM

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man


      Thinking further a lot depends on the orientation of the film canister in the camera. Could be no water, no radiation.

      Its difficult to say how much damage was done to the film in Semyons Camera.  But its also difficult to understand the images.  I think with the
       right equipment and expertise more information may be able to be acquired.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 22, 2020, 05:27:41 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 22, 2020, 05:30:38 PM

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man




      Thinking further a lot depends on the orientation of the film canister in the camera. Could be no water, no radiation.

      Its difficult to say how much damage was done to the film in Semyons Camera.  But its also difficult to understand the images.  I think with the
       right equipment and expertise more information may be able to be acquired.

      Regards

      Star man

      But what would be the right equipment  !  ? 
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 23, 2020, 05:08:48 AM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 23, 2020, 07:29:30 AM
      I doubt there was a radioactive explosion, let alone a massive one, because the same witnesses who saw orange orbs from nearby mountains would also not fail to see, and hear, an explosion. The camera films should show this; nuclear fission reactors also emit neutron radiation, so dosimeter badges are used to detect that too.

      It's not my own preferred theory, but to develop the radioactivity theory I'd suggest a rogue missile impacting the mountainside below the hikers, the kinetic energy disintegrating the missile, generating orange orbs, and shards of it and fissile material, of limited decay, is then scattered upwards across the Dyatlov Pass.

      In 1966 a B52 bomber collided mid-air with a fuel tanker above Spain and 4 bombs fell, one into the sea and 3 others 'detonated' on land, but not, fortunately, as chain reaction explosions, only the detonators exploded. This scattered fissile material over the coast, and the topsoil had to be excavated and disposed off in thousands of barrels.

      Soviet missiles would have failsafes built into them, so a rogue missile didn't take out one of their own populations. You can't fire a nuclear missile and cross your fingers it hits the planned test area, it would need to be remotely armed/disarmed during flight, followed on radar, or sighted from the air. Maybe this one ran out of fuel and fell early.

      In this 'nuclear missile impact' scenario the hikers would be up there to get best vantage of a planned detonation on the horizon, cameras at the ready. Perhaps they knew of this through Semyon, or more likely Igor's pilot friend, who later assisted in the recovery.

      Ejected/scattered material may then account for some of the rips to the tent, all on the downslope side, and it could account for some of the head injuries (I've always felt that rather than 2 flail chests of identical fractures, and an understandly loose hyoid bone after the supporting tissues have rotted away, that it's the number of head injuries which is potentially most suspicious in the DPI).

      If some fissile material entered the tent, landing between the two Yuris, that could account for their burns, from close proximity/physical contact. The radiation burns would take time to develop, so that by the time they reached the forest they'd be incapable of assisting in a hunt for firewood due to the symptoms of radiation sickness, and tissue degradation could continue after death.

      There is then the circumstantial evidence of locals being told not to drink from the ravines, helicopter recovery pilots demanding bodies were in lead-lined coffins, and geiger counters needing to be used.

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: eurocentric on December 23, 2020, 07:38:30 AM

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man




      Thinking further a lot depends on the orientation of the film canister in the camera. Could be no water, no radiation.

      Its difficult to say how much damage was done to the film in Semyons Camera.  But its also difficult to understand the images.  I think with the
       right equipment and expertise more information may be able to be acquired.

      Regards

      Star man

      But what would be the right equipment  !  ?


      I'd want them to have the negatives professionally scanned at the highest possible resolution. dpi the DPI. For posterity, to preserve the images, not just for analysis. And it would be easy to have the negative image grain inspected to determine if the images we see are part of the exposures or film damage to the emulsion surface. Once they have the best possible source material all kinds of present and future digital manipulation can be done to interpret the images.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 23, 2020, 02:55:10 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think it would take a long time to make the aftermath of a Nuclear Explosion disappear !  ? 
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 23, 2020, 03:02:16 PM

      Its unlikely that the water had significant radiation that could affect the film in Semyon's camera.  Water damage is more likely.  Its possible tge shots were not completely damaged.

      Regards

      Star man




      Thinking further a lot depends on the orientation of the film canister in the camera. Could be no water, no radiation.

      Its difficult to say how much damage was done to the film in Semyons Camera.  But its also difficult to understand the images.  I think with the
       right equipment and expertise more information may be able to be acquired.

      Regards

      Star man

      But what would be the right equipment  !  ?


      I'd want them to have the negatives professionally scanned at the highest possible resolution. dpi the DPI. For posterity, to preserve the images, not just for analysis. And it would be easy to have the negative image grain inspected to determine if the images we see are part of the exposures or film damage to the emulsion surface. Once they have the best possible source material all kinds of present and future digital manipulation can be done to interpret the images.

      Me too. I would want anything remaining from the Event or Events to be thoroughly gone over with the latest technology.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 23, 2020, 03:19:24 PM
      I doubt there was a radioactive explosion, let alone a massive one, because the same witnesses who saw orange orbs from nearby mountains would also not fail to see, and hear, an explosion. The camera films should show this; nuclear fission reactors also emit neutron radiation, so dosimeter badges are used to detect that too.

      It's not my own preferred theory, but to develop the radioactivity theory I'd suggest a rogue missile impacting the mountainside below the hikers, the kinetic energy disintegrating the missile, generating orange orbs, and shards of it and fissile material, of limited decay, is then scattered upwards across the Dyatlov Pass.

      In 1966 a B52 bomber collided mid-air with a fuel tanker above Spain and 4 bombs fell, one into the sea and 3 others 'detonated' on land, but not, fortunately, as chain reaction explosions, only the detonators exploded. This scattered fissile material over the coast, and the topsoil had to be excavated and disposed off in thousands of barrels.

      Soviet missiles would have failsafes built into them, so a rogue missile didn't take out one of their own populations. You can't fire a nuclear missile and cross your fingers it hits the planned test area, it would need to be remotely armed/disarmed during flight, followed on radar, or sighted from the air. Maybe this one ran out of fuel and fell early.

      In this 'nuclear missile impact' scenario the hikers would be up there to get best vantage of a planned detonation on the horizon, cameras at the ready. Perhaps they knew of this through Semyon, or more likely Igor's pilot friend, who later assisted in the recovery.

      Ejected/scattered material may then account for some of the rips to the tent, all on the downslope side, and it could account for some of the head injuries (I've always felt that rather than 2 flail chests of identical fractures, and an understandly loose hyoid bone after the supporting tissues have rotted away, that it's the number of head injuries which is potentially most suspicious in the DPI).

      If some fissile material entered the tent, landing between the two Yuris, that could account for their burns, from close proximity/physical contact. The radiation burns would take time to develop, so that by the time they reached the forest they'd be incapable of assisting in a hunt for firewood due to the symptoms of radiation sickness, and tissue degradation could continue after death.

      There is then the circumstantial evidence of locals being told not to drink from the ravines, helicopter recovery pilots demanding bodies were in lead-lined coffins, and geiger counters needing to be used.

      Nothing of an alleged Nuclear Explosion can be seen in any of the Photos.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 23, 2020, 03:30:04 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think it would take a long time to make the aftermath of a Nuclear Explosion disappear !  ?

      I dont think it would take a long time if it was an aerial explosion of low yield in the middle of nowhere.  But you don't have to clean up the site of the explosion, you just move the bodies somewhere else and create a new scene.  You would have lots of time to clean up the actual site then.  Think about it DB.  You often and quite rightly point out the lack of good evidence to support many of the theories.  Maybe the reason is that there is no evidence of any particular event that happened on Kholat Syakhl.  There are lots of contradictions in the available evidence.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 23, 2020, 03:41:39 PM
      I doubt there was a radioactive explosion, let alone a massive one, because the same witnesses who saw orange orbs from nearby mountains would also not fail to see, and hear, an explosion. The camera films should show this; nuclear fission reactors also emit neutron radiation, so dosimeter badges are used to detect that too.

      It's not my own preferred theory, but to develop the radioactivity theory I'd suggest a rogue missile impacting the mountainside below the hikers, the kinetic energy disintegrating the missile, generating orange orbs, and shards of it and fissile material, of limited decay, is then scattered upwards across the Dyatlov Pass.

      In 1966 a B52 bomber collided mid-air with a fuel tanker above Spain and 4 bombs fell, one into the sea and 3 others 'detonated' on land, but not, fortunately, as chain reaction explosions, only the detonators exploded. This scattered fissile material over the coast, and the topsoil had to be excavated and disposed off in thousands of barrels.

      Soviet missiles would have failsafes built into them, so a rogue missile didn't take out one of their own populations. You can't fire a nuclear missile and cross your fingers it hits the planned test area, it would need to be remotely armed/disarmed during flight, followed on radar, or sighted from the air. Maybe this one ran out of fuel and fell early.

      In this 'nuclear missile impact' scenario the hikers would be up there to get best vantage of a planned detonation on the horizon, cameras at the ready. Perhaps they knew of this through Semyon, or more likely Igor's pilot friend, who later assisted in the recovery.

      Ejected/scattered material may then account for some of the rips to the tent, all on the downslope side, and it could account for some of the head injuries (I've always felt that rather than 2 flail chests of identical fractures, and an understandly loose hyoid bone after the supporting tissues have rotted away, that it's the number of head injuries which is potentially most suspicious in the DPI).

      If some fissile material entered the tent, landing between the two Yuris, that could account for their burns, from close proximity/physical contact. The radiation burns would take time to develop, so that by the time they reached the forest they'd be incapable of assisting in a hunt for firewood due to the symptoms of radiation sickness, and tissue degradation could continue after death.

      There is then the circumstantial evidence of locals being told not to drink from the ravines, helicopter recovery pilots demanding bodies were in lead-lined coffins, and geiger counters needing to be used.

      Its possible it could have been a non nuclear test of some kind.  I would say exposure to radiation and neurovascular damage would explain the strange behaviour at the tent, and why Lyuda and Semyon may have fallen and got chest injuries.  A small low yield device detonated at altitude would hardly cause any damage to a pile of snow.  And secret tests of these weapons during a moratorium on testing is a good way to close the gap on Western technology.

      Although I am beginning to suspect the actual incident happened elsewhere.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: GKM on December 24, 2020, 05:14:05 AM
      Why have these photos not been examined in a professional lab by men and women who are EXPERTS in their field?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: GKM on December 24, 2020, 05:36:57 AM
      YES!!!! Have all negatives examined by competent, highly skilled, highly intelligent, professionals!!
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 27, 2020, 01:19:58 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think it would take a long time to make the aftermath of a Nuclear Explosion disappear !  ?

      I dont think it would take a long time if it was an aerial explosion of low yield in the middle of nowhere.  But you don't have to clean up the site of the explosion, you just move the bodies somewhere else and create a new scene.  You would have lots of time to clean up the actual site then.  Think about it DB.  You often and quite rightly point out the lack of good evidence to support many of the theories.  Maybe the reason is that there is no evidence of any particular event that happened on Kholat Syakhl.  There are lots of contradictions in the available evidence.

      Regards

      Star man

      Missing Cameras and missing Film  !  ?  Missing Tent  ! ?  Maybe missing Diary entries or other written notes  ! ?
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 27, 2020, 05:12:35 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think it would take a long time to make the aftermath of a Nuclear Explosion disappear !  ?

      I dont think it would take a long time if it was an aerial explosion of low yield in the middle of nowhere.  But you don't have to clean up the site of the explosion, you just move the bodies somewhere else and create a new scene.  You would have lots of time to clean up the actual site then.  Think about it DB.  You often and quite rightly point out the lack of good evidence to support many of the theories.  Maybe the reason is that there is no evidence of any particular event that happened on Kholat Syakhl.  There are lots of contradictions in the available evidence.

      Regards

      Star man

      Missing Cameras and missing Film  !  ?  Missing Tent  ! ?  Maybe missing Diary entries or other written notes  ! ?

      The lack of good quality evidence, contradictions in the evidence, is either a result of a very poor investigation, done under difficult circumstances, or the erosion of evidence and artifacts over time, or deliberate manipulation of the evidence?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 28, 2020, 05:50:45 PM
      Traces of Radiation were found at the place of the demise of the Dyatlov Group. No Atomic explosion took place that caused their demise. Its interesting to note that many recorded UFO Events and Crop Circle Events etc have been known to show traces of Radiation.

      There is no reason to rule it out and it would answer many questions.  Like why they left the tent in such a strange way.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think some things can be ruled out because of the facts speaking for themselves. For instance in a Nuclear Explosion Event there is going to be significant damage and traces of such an Event. We have nothing of the sort. We have no significant damage or traces that may have come from a Nuclear Explosion. True we have some traces of Radiation but that could have come from something else.

      As you say though, there is alot 9f missing evidence.  And d9nt forget that in a situation where 9 of your finest die in a secret accident and don't want your secrets to get out, but you do want to honour the dead and allow respects to be paid, if you can't make the bodies disappear, you can always make the crime scene disappear 8nsread.

      Regards

      Star man

      I think it would take a long time to make the aftermath of a Nuclear Explosion disappear !  ?

      I dont think it would take a long time if it was an aerial explosion of low yield in the middle of nowhere.  But you don't have to clean up the site of the explosion, you just move the bodies somewhere else and create a new scene.  You would have lots of time to clean up the actual site then.  Think about it DB.  You often and quite rightly point out the lack of good evidence to support many of the theories.  Maybe the reason is that there is no evidence of any particular event that happened on Kholat Syakhl.  There are lots of contradictions in the available evidence.

      Regards

      Star man

      Missing Cameras and missing Film  !  ?  Missing Tent  ! ?  Maybe missing Diary entries or other written notes  ! ?

      The lack of good quality evidence, contradictions in the evidence, is either a result of a very poor investigation, done under difficult circumstances, or the erosion of evidence and artifacts over time, or deliberate manipulation of the evidence?

      Regards

      Star man

      And thats a serious problem in the Investigation of what actually happened. We dont know the circumstances of the Missing Evidence.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 29, 2020, 01:28:54 AM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 29, 2020, 03:58:45 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.   
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 29, 2020, 05:20:16 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      What, other than national security, or covering up an embracing state blunder would warrant this?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 29, 2020, 05:26:40 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 30, 2020, 01:48:20 AM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      What, other than national security, or covering up an embracing state blunder would warrant this?

      Regards

      Star man


      Yes i think national security or a state blunder covers all the bases. National security concerns explains everything of course from the cover up to the investment made to find the remaining four before the summer thaw (Alexander + Semyon possibly KGB).
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 30, 2020, 01:59:47 AM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man


      I've a memory of someone pointing out that zinc coffins are common in Russia to the extent that it has entered the vernacular = "wearing a zinc suit".
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on December 30, 2020, 02:31:47 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on December 30, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: mk on December 30, 2020, 05:31:02 PM
      I've a memory of someone pointing out that zinc coffins are common in Russia to the extent that it has entered the vernacular = "wearing a zinc suit".
      I searched online and it seems that zinc-lined coffins are common in many places.  They are required for transporting bodies by air, and for repatriation of remains.  I think it has something to do with sealing the bodies in a sanitary way, and nothing to do with radiation in particular.  I think many different kinds of dense substances can offer some amount of protection from radiation, probably including zinc to some extent, but I don't think the request for zinc coffins is enough to deduce that the pilots were afraid of radiation.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Nigel Evans on December 31, 2020, 12:21:33 AM
      I've a memory of someone pointing out that zinc coffins are common in Russia to the extent that it has entered the vernacular = "wearing a zinc suit".
      I searched online and it seems that zinc-lined coffins are common in many places.  They are required for transporting bodies by air, and for repatriation of remains.  I think it has something to do with sealing the bodies in a sanitary way, and nothing to do with radiation in particular.  I think many different kinds of dense substances can offer some amount of protection from radiation, probably including zinc to some extent, but I don't think the request for zinc coffins is enough to deduce that the pilots were afraid of radiation.


      Yes that's my take.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on January 02, 2021, 11:52:15 AM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on January 02, 2021, 04:43:06 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.

      EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices.  I would not completely rule out ET until it can be ruled out completely, but it would probably be much lower on the list.  But maybe above avalanche.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on January 03, 2021, 01:52:58 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.

      EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices.  I would not completely rule out ET until it can be ruled out completely, but it would probably be much lower on the list.  But maybe above avalanche.

      Regards

      Star man

      Exactly, you said it, '' EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices''.  And ''Nuclear'' is a vast uncharted territory for Humans. Its one thing to make explosions with Nuclear Devices its another to harness the Energy with Nuclear Devices. Any advanced Alien lifeforms would almost certainly have gone down that road long ago.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on January 03, 2021, 06:03:07 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.

      EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices.  I would not completely rule out ET until it can be ruled out completely, but it would probably be much lower on the list.  But maybe above avalanche.

      Regards

      Star man

      Exactly, you said it, '' EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices''.  And ''Nuclear'' is a vast uncharted territory for Humans. Its one thing to make explosions with Nuclear Devices its another to harness the Energy with Nuclear Devices. Any advanced Alien lifeforms would almost certainly have gone down that road long ago.

      Not sure what point you are making DB?  Humans have harnessed nuclear energy, and weapons?  I would imagine that any ET capable of visiting our planet would have technology far beyond nuclear fission, or fusion.  Probably antimatter technology, or using quantum entanglement, or spacetime manipulation to channel energy from sources many light years away.  I dont think anything they might have would generate a nasty radioactive contaminant.  But who knows,  as it is in the realm of pure speculation.

      Regards

      Star man
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: sarapuk on January 04, 2021, 12:17:11 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.

      EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices.  I would not completely rule out ET until it can be ruled out completely, but it would probably be much lower on the list.  But maybe above avalanche.

      Regards

      Star man

      Exactly, you said it, '' EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices''.  And ''Nuclear'' is a vast uncharted territory for Humans. Its one thing to make explosions with Nuclear Devices its another to harness the Energy with Nuclear Devices. Any advanced Alien lifeforms would almost certainly have gone down that road long ago.

      Not sure what point you are making DB?  Humans have harnessed nuclear energy, and weapons?  I would imagine that any ET capable of visiting our planet would have technology far beyond nuclear fission, or fusion.  Probably antimatter technology, or using quantum entanglement, or spacetime manipulation to channel energy from sources many light years away.  I dont think anything they might have would generate a nasty radioactive contaminant.  But who knows,  as it is in the realm of pure speculation.

      Regards

      Star man

      Well Humans may have started to explore the Atom and its parts but its still relatively early days. There are things yet to be discovered.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Star man on January 04, 2021, 05:07:24 PM
      We know Okishev stated that Ivanov's orders would include removing things from the case files.

      It seems that they were both involved in having to wrap up the case pretty quickly once the order had come from the top. And by top I mean the very top of the Administration of the USSR. So that means Nikita Khrushchev would have known. He may even have given the order to close the case and the area for several years. Which is what I mean by the circumstances. The KGB would almost certainly have been involved both on the ground and later during any Autopsies etc. Something happened to the Dyatlov Group and I just cant see how it could have been any thing to do with Nuclear explosions. Okishev may have thought it could have been a Nuclear Event but he couldnt say for sure. The talk of lights in the Sky may be nothing to do with Missiles or planes.

      The radiation is a clue.  Also Solters statement that the corpses were cleaned up, their clothes removed and destroyed, the pilots referring to zinc coffins, the mysterious way they died, the fire balls seen in the sky,  pilots instruments going crazy etc etc. 

      Why zinc coffins?  Why not lead?  Wouldn't that be better?

      Regards

      Star man

      Yes Radiation is a clue but a clue to what ? It could be a clue to a number of things. Ivanov said that the Geiger Counters went crazy. Strange lights in the Sky seen by locals over a period of time. Pilots have noticed that their Instruments have sometimes gone crazy. Ring a bell. UFO's and Instruments malfunctioning.

      Well, I wouldnt rule out UFO or UAPs (as I believe they are referred to these days).  I have done a little research into it recently and there does seem to be more influential people raising their eyebrows to the latest information.  But substantially more evidence would needed.  Also, I dont know why any propulsion system or alien technology would result in radioactive contaminants being spread around?  Lights in the sky can be explained by military activity.  Instruments going crazy could be EMP from a weapon.  I still wonder what Kolevatov's device was for.  Was it something that could measure the magnitude of an EMP?

      Regards

      Star man

      If there was Alien technology it would almost certainly be far more advanced that any Human understanding. EMP weapons were not invented until after 1959.

      EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices.  I would not completely rule out ET until it can be ruled out completely, but it would probably be much lower on the list.  But maybe above avalanche.

      Regards

      Star man

      Exactly, you said it, '' EMP pulse is generated in nuclear devices''.  And ''Nuclear'' is a vast uncharted territory for Humans. Its one thing to make explosions with Nuclear Devices its another to harness the Energy with Nuclear Devices. Any advanced Alien lifeforms would almost certainly have gone down that road long ago.

      Not sure what point you are making DB?  Humans have harnessed nuclear energy, and weapons?  I would imagine that any ET capable of visiting our planet would have technology far beyond nuclear fission, or fusion.  Probably antimatter technology, or using quantum entanglement, or spacetime manipulation to channel energy from sources many light years away.  I dont think anything they might have would generate a nasty radioactive contaminant.  But who knows,  as it is in the realm of pure speculation.

      Regards

      Star man

      Well Humans may have started to explore the Atom and its parts but its still relatively early days. There are things yet to be discovered.

      True, there is still alot that Humans do not know, such as dark energy, gravity, antigravity, antigravitational geothermal heat induction, etc

      Regards

      Star man

      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on July 14, 2021, 02:16:29 PM
      Why have these photos not been examined in a professional lab by men and women who are EXPERTS in their field?

      They have, and I wrote a scientific book about it. I'll let the Amazon description speak for itsself.
      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08XC3LCFJ (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08XC3LCFJ)

      You are absolutely right: The photographs are vital evidence, and should have been treated with more professionalism long ago.

      PS: I don't want to discuss my conclusion here, because that would only make sense if you read the book beginning to end. But if you're really interested in some fascinating new findings, have a go at it. If you then feel you could write me a fair review, I'll be glad to send you the next edition free of cost. Sorry for the promotion, but I could not leave this question unanswered. This is the only place I have mentioned my book in this forum, in respect to Teddy's own book which launched a few weeks before mine.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: Zozzle on August 25, 2021, 01:42:07 AM
      @time2fly

      Because of the information you discovered about the the "three heads" picture I'm very skeptical that any of the alleged pictures presented by Valentin Yakimenko are actually from the camera on Zolotaryov's body.

      Looking through the other rolls of film, there are lots of spots and defects that could, when magnified, look exactly like the pictures Yakimenko presented.

      Look at the upper right corner of this one for example:

      (https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film6-21.jpg)

      Of course not a 1:1 match but maybe there is software that could compare the "bright lights" to spots and defects on the other pictures.
      Title: Re: Photographs
      Post by: time2fly on September 17, 2021, 03:45:25 PM
      @time2fly

      Because of the information you discovered about the the "three heads" picture I'm very skeptical that any of the alleged pictures presented by Valentin Yakimenko are actually from the camera on Zolotaryov's body.

      Looking through the other rolls of film, there are lots of spots and defects that could, when magnified, look exactly like the pictures Yakimenko presented.

      Your doubt is justified. There is some strangeness concerning the frames, and why the seemingly most important ones are still not public. I believe many of the frames presented by Yakimenko are actually enlarged dust artifacts and emulsion damage. However, Z7 (eagle) does look pretty authentic. I will travel to Yekaterinburg next year to find out.

      Meanwhile, I did a little image analysis and compared the famous 34 and Slobodin frames to pictures that were taken in the so-called M-Zone, 500 km south of the Dyatlov pass, in 1994. The M-Zone lies on the same tectonic fault line as the Dyatlov pass, and similar light phenomena (UAPs) have been observed there over the years.

      (https://i.ibb.co/k47cHtB/K34-SX-Z7-16-A-16-B.jpg) (https://ibb.co/McvN2mS)

      And just for fun, I did some histogram modifications on frame 34. Sure doesn't look like a lab light, tent entrance or rocket to me.

      (https://i.ibb.co/TB2ST7b/K34-editing-collage.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RpbmSsB)

      The so called "plane" to me is a more rectangular version of the UAP. Plasma clouds have been known to be rectangual. In my book there is a scientific analysis as to why.

      (https://i.ibb.co/g3nhbvz/Zolotaryov-plane-edited.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9NMSmws)

      And again just for fun, here is a comparison of M-Zone fireballs to the famous recent pentagon gimbal videos. I'll leave the conclusion up to you:

      (https://i.ibb.co/tsDLBFN/Pentagon-M-Zone-comparison.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Hzqh73M)

      All of these (and more surprises) are explained in detail in my book "NOT a cold case". I also analyze the "eagle" frame in detail, which to me is authentic and the most important public available piece of evidence.

      PS: The key to the mystery has always been why they fled the tent. And the key to that are the UAPs that multiple people have observed during and after the incident. And they were photographed by at least 5 Dyatlov cameras according to Valentin Yakimenko. There are even eye witnesses on Mt. Chistop on the night of the 1.2,. who thought the Dyatlovs were shooting flares to celebrate their ascent. Must have been big flares, since they were 50 km away.