Zolotaryov's camera

[Jakub Firlej]

Picture 3. A bit of work and it is possible to determine what is in the picture.



More to come.

Greetings to everyone.

[Jakub Firlej]

03 frame location.

[sarapuk]

Picture 3. A bit of work and it is possible to determine what is in the picture.



More to come.

Greetings to everyone.

Interesting addition to the many variations on a theme. But I think that this is really stretching the imagination.

[cz]

Hey Jakub, thanks for the creative reading of the picture. I always recognized the outline of the tent in the bright patch (and of course people thought it was too much of a stretch and, well, maybe it is but maybe not). I am able to see your idea about the bodies and I think you suggest that this shows a scene at the fire. The left figure seems a bit large compared to the others. I have no clue what evidence in the photo helps to pinpoint the location.

Interestingly, I could not find a scale for this very photo in the analysis by Yakimenko (I tried to work my way through the Russian text, which is unfortunately not exactly my expertise). The other pictures show small sections of the film. Maybe also true for this one, but I am not sure.

However sketchy these photos may be, I am convinced that if Zolotaryov had the chance to use his camera, he would have tried to catch something meaningful and that these photos or whatever is left of them are one of the rare occasions to add new evidence to this case. So good luck and I am looking forward to reading about your ideas!

[Jakub Firlej]

Hey Jakub, thanks for the creative reading of the picture. I always recognized the outline of the tent in the bright patch (and of course people thought it was too much of a stretch and, well, maybe it is but maybe not). I am able to see your idea about the bodies and I think you suggest that this shows a scene at the fire. The left figure seems a bit large compared to the others. I have no clue what evidence in the photo helps to pinpoint the location.

Interestingly, I could not find a scale for this very photo in the analysis by Yakimenko (I tried to work my way through the Russian text, which is unfortunately not exactly my expertise). The other pictures show small sections of the film. Maybe also true for this one, but I am not sure.

However sketchy these photos may be, I am convinced that if Zolotaryov had the chance to use his camera, he would have tried to catch something meaningful and that these photos or whatever is left of them are one of the rare occasions to add new evidence to this case. So good luck and I am looking forward to reading about your ideas!

About the location. There are only some indications. At first I thought the photo was from inside the tent. I saw a mast tent (green), backpack (blue). This I rejected.

1. Too loose for so many people in a tent.
2. Problems with perspective

The problem was with the "floor"(red).



Option 2: In front of the tent.

A ski, not a mast. I dismissed after several attempts to visualize it.

1) The perspective problem again.
2) No location anchor point (no one certain element).

Option 3: Fire

Indication1: Light

At first, I was working with a black and white photo. When I colored them, it showed a strong light source (from the center near the "ski"). I got suspicious.



Indication 2: Fire

I looked at the other Zolotaryov's photos. Is there another photo that shows the fire? I found them.



Indication 3: "Backpack"

I was intrigued what a "backpack" is. Picture 1 (blue object). Until I saw this photo:



Photo a bit from a different angle. However, I think it is the same object.

Indication 4: Perspective.

On that assumption, finally did sensible perspective.



Sorry for bad English :)

[Jakub Firlej]

Frame 3. Finish. This activity raises many questions.

[cz]

Hi Jakub,

Thanks for your explanations. Obviously, you have thought about your analysis very carefully.

I agree with your argument that to take any photo with a chance of showing something, a source of light is needed. The tent location and the scene at the fire are to known situations, where there was light.

I see how you identify the stone with the structure in the photo. It is of course tough to establish anything reliable here, but I think this stone is located underneath the famous cedar? Then this is at least not just any stone in the Urals, but a rather special one.

If you are interested, you can find my interpretation of this photo here:
https://ibb.co/t2dZbtj
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=140.0

I do not find a particular problem with perspective when considering that this might show the tent. Also the camera was not necessarily in an ideal position so probably it is not upside-down because one can hardly take a photo then but some rotation may have to be considered. I also found this dark structure above what you interpret as the fire intriguing, however, I thought that it may be a part of the tent, which actually consisted of two tents stitched together (and this would then be the thicker part of the overlapping canvas).

I am a bit skeptical about frames 4 and 11 because these really show tiny fractions of the photo. People have argued that frame 11 may show a plane (this is also the name assigned by Yakimenko). The idea is that a plane may still be seen in the light of the Sun, when it is close to the horizon, when you are already standing in the dark on the ground when the Sun is obscured by a mountain or so.

It remains difficult and certainly a bit speculative. Maybe we are only looking at water damage. Anyway, I find your new ideas very interesting.

Chees, CZ

BTW: As you seem to be interested in DPI photography, I wonder what you think about this
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=303.0   

[Jakub Firlej]

Hi. Thanks for all your comments.

Thanks for your explanations. Obviously, you have thought about your analysis very carefully.

First, a general issue.

I don't want to prove, that there is a fire under the cedar for sure. I want to get the maximum content of these photos. Any convictions derive from what goes to reveal. And I treat them carefully. I'll see what the next photos will show. And will it be a coherent story? This is related to the theory that there is a tent in the photo. I tortured this photo for two weeks. In all ways. The tent doesn't appear.

Hi Jakub,
I see how you identify the stone with the structure in the photo. It is of course tough to establish anything reliable here, but I think this stone is located underneath the famous cedar? Then this is at least not just any stone in the Urals, but a rather special one.

The stone is under the cedar. Photo here: https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=78.0

I'm placing frame 3 on this photo (reference point - stone) gives a reliable positioning of the figures in the field:

I do not find a particular problem with perspective when considering that this might show the tent. Also the camera was not necessarily in an ideal position so probably it is not upside-down because one can hardly take a photo then but some rotation may have to be considered. I also found this dark structure above what you interpret as the fire intriguing, however, I thought that it may be a part of the tent, which actually consisted of two tents stitched together (and this would then be the thicker part of the overlapping canvas).

It's not a camera rotation. I had the biggest problem with perspective. It is twisted in the photo. I couldn't understand why for a very long time.



These photos helped me understand this twist of perspective:

I am a bit skeptical about frames 4 and 11 because these really show tiny fractions of the photo. People have argued that frame 11 may show a plane (this is also the name assigned by Yakimenko). The idea is that a plane may still be seen in the light of the Sun, when it is close to the horizon, when you are already standing in the dark on the ground when the Sun is obscured by a mountain or so.

Then I am torturing frames 4 and 11 now. I will check if there is anything more than we can see.

BTW: As you seem to be interested in DPI photography, I wonder what you think about this
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=303.0

I think there is the same effect in both photos. On the second one is hardly visible.

Greetings.

[fdrnas]

What od this?No data edit

[Jakub Firlej]

Frame 04

[cz]

Hi Jakub,

You definitely tortured the photos exactly as you promised. Kudos to your effort.

Is your working hypothesis that the bright spot shows a fire (or some light at least) with two bodies around and a possible additional bystander a bit further away? At least this is what it seems to me. This is for sure an interpretation, I have not seen so far. It will remain hard to establish a unique reading. Unfortunately, I am unable to dig out the original analysis by Yakimenko (which I did see at some point), but what is shown in these pictures is a really small fraction of the film.

As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.

Cheers, CZ

[Jakub Firlej]

Hi Jakub,

You definitely tortured the photos exactly as you promised. Kudos to your effort.

Is your working hypothesis that the bright spot shows a fire (or some light at least) with two bodies around and a possible additional bystander a bit further away? At least this is what it seems to me. This is for sure an interpretation, I have not seen so far. It will remain hard to establish a unique reading. Unfortunately, I am unable to dig out the original analysis by Yakimenko (which I did see at some point), but what is shown in these pictures is a really small fraction of the film.

As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.

Cheers, CZ

Hi.

I try not to interpret it. I want to see as much content as possible. If it denies imposing the interpretation, it will also be ok. It's good too. I'd rather see a piece of truth than prove the interpretation.

I will also torture the photos you are talking about. I only have little time for this. Unfortunately, my duties are first.

Greetings.

[cz]

I try not to interpret it. I want to see as much content as possible. If it denies imposing the interpretation, it will also be ok. It's good too. I'd rather see a piece of truth than prove the interpretation.

I will also torture the photos you are talking about. I only have little time for this. Unfortunately, my duties are first.

Greetings.

Hi Jakub,

Sounds like an impartial science-like approach you follow. Very nice!

I am looking forward to your analysis, because I have seen "everything and nothing" in these images. However, this case has remained unsolved for 60 years, so it can certainly wait a bit longer. No hurry...

Cheers

[Jakub Firlej]

As you seem to be in the flow, I wonder whether you can make anything out of the "eagle" 1 and 2 pictures in the set. What sets these apart from the rest (in my opinion) is that they show a lot of similarity although they seem to be two independent pictures (where we need to keep in mind that they may have been in touch on the original roll of film). Nonetheless, with two examples of what might be the same thing, chances for results increase.

Cheers, CZ

Sorry. I have a lot of responsibilities recently. There is a problem with eagles 1 and 2. The light source blinds the camera. I can't see anything but the source. I will torture it again. Only now I have little time.







Greetings

[cz]

Sorry. I have a lot of responsibilities recently.

Hi,
Please do not feel obliged in any way. This is all for fun and curiosity.

There is a problem with eagles 1 and 2. The light source blinds the camera. I can't see anything but the source. I will torture it again. Only now I have little time.

You are of course right. What strikes me about the "eagle" lights is that they are not round. If it were a moderately distant light source such as a flashlight, I would have expected that. Maybe it is two lights merging in the overexposed ellipse.

This "structure" under the lights is often described as resembling the trunk of a tree. If it were really so, the perspective of the photographer must have been a curious one, however. What I find interesting is that this structure is actually quite similar in both pictures. One can superimpose them after a bit of adaption and see this (more information). Assuming that it is a real picture (and not some remnant) more or less the same thing is shown twice. This is the only such example among the photos attributed to Zolotaryov. The photographer saw something, which he considered important enough to photograph two times. I wonder whether your magic can shed more light on how this thing looks and, ultimately, of course what this is.

Cheers, CZ

[Jakub Firlej]

You are of course right. What strikes me about the "eagle" lights is that they are not round. If it were a moderately distant light source such as a flashlight, I would have expected that. Maybe it is two lights merging in the overexposed ellipse.

Look this: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-199-208?rbid=17743

There is given an atypical model of the flashlight used by the expedition (university equipment list). That would explain why the light is not round.



I will torture these photos again.

Cheers :)

[Jakub Firlej]

This "structure" under the lights is often described as resembling the trunk of a tree. If it were really so, the perspective of the photographer must have been a curious one, however. What I find interesting is that this structure is actually quite similar in both pictures. One can superimpose them after a bit of adaption and see this (more information). Assuming that it is a real picture (and not some remnant) more or less the same thing is shown twice. This is the only such example among the photos attributed to Zolotaryov. The photographer saw something, which he considered important enough to photograph two times. I wonder whether your magic can shed more light on how this thing looks and, ultimately, of course what this is.

Not only the camera was blinded. Me too. Frame 8 (eagle 2 light) is a fragment of Frame 7 (eagle 1 light). Both photos have identical damage.

[cz]

Damn, you are right. They are the same. A bit of a different section and light, but the same. So, I admit that this is somewhat disappointing because it renders the argument of double evidence invalid.

Very accurate observation about the flashlight. One was found on the tent, another one on the slope. No idea whether this means anything.

As for the photo, I wonder whether your eye distinguishes anything in the region within the yellow frame. My eye tends to get stuck there and sees something, but it is so easy to see things here...

Cheers, CZ

[eurocentric]

You are of course right. What strikes me about the "eagle" lights is that they are not round. If it were a moderately distant light source such as a flashlight, I would have expected that. Maybe it is two lights merging in the overexposed ellipse.

Look this: https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-199-208?rbid=17743

There is given an atypical model of the flashlight used by the expedition (university equipment list). That would explain why the light is not round.



I will torture these photos again.

Cheers :)

As you may gather from my avatar I have an interest in the Eagle Light photo's, and it's clearly an electric light with a reflector providing a uniform brilliance, and in the full frame a directional beam shines down through cold night air, like a dry ice effect.

I was intrigued by your post, and am eager to determine what this light may be if not my own idea, so I've been researching this.

I cannot be 100% certain, but am reasonably certain from all examples I have found that the version of the Zil dynamo light this web site links to, with a rectangular lens, sometimes called Bug, was from the 1970s, and earlier versions had round lenses (called Beetle).

Furthermore the dynamo lights of that era required the handle to be continually squeezed to produce light, like the way a bicycle wheel has to spin to power dynamo lights, so would not be their torch of choice to take down the pass. Later models included a rechargeable battery.

It's also a small torch, pocket-sized, and unlikely to generate such a powerful beam/one with a uniform luminosity.

[cz]

Hi eurocentric,

First time I realize your avatar is the eagle (:

I find it hard to be sure that it is an electric light that one sees here, but that is certainly a possibility. Also the form if the flashlight you and Jakub suggest would fit in its general dimensions.

One of the questions, I ask myself in the attempt to understand what could be seen here is what kind of situation Zolotaryov (or whoever had the camera then) would have photographed.

Assuming it is the beam of a flashlight, it does not make a lot of sense to shoot right at the beam when the light is close unless perhaps if it was the light of a stranger. However, it cannot be very far, if the shape is reproduced in the image.

If it was their own light, it may have been used to illuminate something, which was the actual target of the photo. Possibly that was what you describe as the dry ice effect. Maybe it was something on the ground.

[ash73]

Are Zolotaryov's photos from the camera left in the tent, or the one found on his body? I read somewhere the film in the latter was destroyed.

[Missi]

Rakitin states that the film from the camera found on Zolotaryov has not been released. He also states that the camera Zolotaryov had around his neck during the rest of the trek was left in the tent, the film inside showing no picture taken on the trek.

According to here (https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy?flp=1#zolotaryovcamera) Zolotaryov took a second camera, the film of which was only there in parts, when found. Although left in water for quite some time it was still intact, just some pictures where underdeveloped. Where the previous 17 pictures went is not known.

[marieuk]

 any ideas why he would have taken two cameras and apparently not used one of them at all?

[Missi]

Rakitin builds a theory of spies and KGB involvement. According to him, Zolotaryov was with the KGB, as well as two others (Kolevatov and Krivonischenko). Their mission was to deliver clothes with contamination of a radioactive isotope to some western agents in order to set the intelligence services on a wrong trace. Zolotaryov was supposed to take pictures with a special camera on a special film when the meeting occured. For none of the other hikes to get suspicious, he was wearing a camera around his neck from the beginning of the hike. He didn't use it, though.

That's what Rakitin makes of it. His theory has some flaws, if you ask me. But I guess, the discussion of Rakitins theory would be rather its own thread in the KGB-section...

[marieuk]

thank you.  that's very interesting.  it does sound like he wanted to use one of them for something special.