Dyatlov Pass Forum
Theories Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Clacon on March 20, 2019, 09:58:08 AM
-
Does anyone know how dark it would have been on the slope at the supposed time they fled the tent? Was just reading a post that mentioned the flashlight found on top of the tent and it got me thinking. There was another one found some metres from the tent correct? Which one was turned on??
I was just thinking if it was dark, how would they have been able to see where they were running (or walking to in a composed manner as the footprints found suggest)?
They must have been able to have seen the treeline to go to it right? So it must have been:
1) light enough to be able to see the treeline;
a) either by natural light OR
b) something that lit up the night sky OR
c) by a flashlight left on halfway down the slope (probably the least likely)
OR they couldn't see where they were going but remembered where the treeline was??
This all hinges on how dark it was because they assumedly would have been able to have seen to get firewood and start a fire down at the cedar.
Also, if they couldn't see, wouldn't it make falling off a ledge into the ravine a more legitimate fit to the injuries of the Ravine 4? This could perhaps be a timeline clue - that it was dark by the time those 4 died.
It would also I suppose support the "den was a plant" theory bc they wouldn't have had time to build it if they had died that way.
-
The moon on Feb 1 1959
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Dyatlov-pass-moon-1959-02-01.jpg)
Going down and in the direction of the wind (so the wind blows in your back) is the only way to go.
The day before they saw what's around, they really don't need light to make the decision, is the only way.
Also why leave a perfectly good flashlight turned off on top of the tent?
But then again, there was no snow on top of the flashlight, so we don't know when was it left or was it moved.
More on flashlights https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search#flashlight
-
Thank you Teddy :))
So you think maybe it was bright enough that they could see??
-
The moon on Feb 1 1959
(https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Dyatlov-pass-moon-1959-02-01.jpg)
This very weak representation about the moon of that day, to be exact at night when there were events. The analytical approach can be more thorough: I will result figures and time of occurrence of the moon, and as prospective condition of weather, and particularly overcast:
On February, 01st, 1959 the sun has sunset lower horizon at 18:04 local time or 6.04 PM in the American standard. Civil twilight (as the sun has fallen to 7 degrees below horizon) have come at 19:04 or 7.04 PM in the American standard.
At the night from 01 for February to 02nd the moon should ascend over horizon at 05.17 AM in the American standard (in our standard this time coincides), to azimuth = 126 degrees (it about the South-East) and had the size of 39 % from full size. Morning twilight 1959 began on February, 02nd at 9.26 AM in the American standard, and the moon was on the ball at 8.14 AM in the American standard 14 degrees over horizon that little more above than corner between kind upwards from cedar and corner of visible crosspiece of mountains in the South and the South-East. It is necessary notice that on settlement weather forecast at this time still there was a low overcast which is well visible on two last pictures when Dyatlov group goes to tent place in the afternoon in February, 01st 1959.
If to show all this situation on map it will look so:
(https://b.radikal.ru/b21/1903/eb/b4b29889c355t.jpg) (https://b.radikal.ru/b21/1903/eb/b4b29889c355.jpg)
Here inscriptions are write in Russian, but they should be easily understood on figures about which I now spoke. If it will be necessary explain and result conformity of words write please in this forum and then I will give transfer. Now I do not have initial file in CorelDraw! Format and I could correct that at once.
Going down and in the direction of the wind (so the wind blows in your back) is the only way to go.
As the directional marker can be used it, but they hardly could that that to see except dim contours of dark subjects. Besides, his feet is bear downwards under such circumstances.
The day before they saw what's around, they really don't need light to make the decision, is the only way.
In the afternoon when they went to tent place, they too saw no more than could see at night. Especially if there was same fog (and I am very similar to it on the same pictures about which spoke) as at us was on March, 12th 2019 when we left from cedar to pass and aside " Ilyich base ".
Also why leave a perfectly good flashlight turned off on top of the tent?
But then again, there was no snow on top of the flashlight, so we don't know when was it left or was it moved.
It is very logical question. About this small lamp spoke and wrote already more than one month after it saw. And saw it already after Boris Slobtsov and Michael Sharavin examined tent. Some years ago Michael Sharavin in one of our conversations has told that there can be even it they could put it on snow when examined tent on February, 26th 1959. They little that remembering from those events that were on February, 26th, but it quite could be so.
More on flashlights https://dyatlovpass.com/1959-search#flashlight
Here it is not enough and not so in detail. About kinds of small lamps I can show here that:
1. " Chinese " the round small lamp similar to volume that was at Igor Dyatlov:
(https://d.radikal.ru/d22/1903/4c/cab3ae292041t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d22/1903/4c/cab3ae292041.jpg)
2. "The Square" small lamp which is visible in photos of their travel on clothes at Simeon Zolotaryov:
(https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978t.jpg) (https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg)
3. The Small lamp of "Zhuchek (small beetle)" (generating by hand) about which is record in criminal case:
(https://c.radikal.ru/c05/1903/c7/7075f0852359t.jpg) (https://c.radikal.ru/c05/1903/c7/7075f0852359.jpg)
Unfortunately my the cover and glass on reflector has not remained.
About places of find and estimation of condition small lamps and elements of electricity I will not have time tell today about it.
-
Thank you Teddy :))
So you think maybe it was bright enough that they could see??
I didn't say that. I said that if you stay at the location of the tent there is nowhere else to go.
Going to the right, where they came from, is at least a mile against the wind. They wouldn't have survived it.
Where they went the wind dies down after half a mile, and during this half a mile blows in your back, so it's actually helping you go down. They knew where they were from before it got dark.
The wind blows snow from the mountain at all time. There is limited visibility, the moon doesn't really matter. They went the only possible way.
-
Sun and moon data for 2nd Feb 1959.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?ID=AA&year=1959&month=2&day=2&place=&lon_sign=1&lon_deg=59&lon_min=27&lat_sign=1&lat_deg=61&lat_min=45&tz=3&tz_sign=1
-
I think it's safe to assume that it was dark and probably overcast. But snow reflects even small amounts of light so there may have been a small amount of visibility?
Regards
Star man
-
If i'm correct about Semyon's photos then there would be illumination.
-
Sorry Nigel - could you give me a link to the discussion about Semyon's pics and illumination? Your take is that they could see bc of the moon and it reflecting off of the snow (as per Star Man)?
-
Sorry Nigel - could you give me a link to the discussion about Semyon's pics and illumination? Your take is that they could see bc of the moon and it reflecting off of the snow (as per Star Man)?
No my theory is that they camped up there on purpose to photograph the light show on the western ridge and Semyon's photos are real (not damage) and of electro magnetism, e.g. plane 2 is illuminating the ground and the snow traveling over it - https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera
The theory is that when they confiscated all the good photos they left these behind as the images need 30x magnification. The counter argument is that the films are just damaged as Semyons camera was under snow for several months, but the counter argument to that is the Eagle is a perfect fit for the event described by the meteorologist witness - "a light surrounded by a mist". It's all in my thread - http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=308.0 - "The Real Ball Lightning Theory", ignore the other one....
-
Does anyone know how dark it would have been on the slope at the supposed time they fled the tent? Was just reading a post that mentioned the flashlight found on top of the tent and it got me thinking. There was another one found some metres from the tent correct? Which one was turned on??
I was just thinking if it was dark, how would they have been able to see where they were running (or walking to in a composed manner as the footprints found suggest)?
They must have been able to have seen the treeline to go to it right? So it must have been:
1) light enough to be able to see the treeline;
a) either by natural light OR
b) something that lit up the night sky OR
c) by a flashlight left on halfway down the slope (probably the least likely)
OR they couldn't see where they were going but remembered where the treeline was??
This all hinges on how dark it was because they assumedly would have been able to have seen to get firewood and start a fire down at the cedar.
Also, if they couldn't see, wouldn't it make falling off a ledge into the ravine a more legitimate fit to the injuries of the Ravine 4? This could perhaps be a timeline clue - that it was dark by the time those 4 died.
It would also I suppose support the "den was a plant" theory bc they wouldn't have had time to build it if they had died that way.
Dont forget the SNOW factor. Have you ever been out at night with lots of SNOW on the ground ? Even with no moonlight, its amazing what a difference a layer of SNOW can make to visibility.
-
Does anyone know how dark it would have been on the slope at the supposed time they fled the tent? Was just reading a post that mentioned the flashlight found on top of the tent and it got me thinking. There was another one found some metres from the tent correct? Which one was turned on??
I was just thinking if it was dark, how would they have been able to see where they were running (or walking to in a composed manner as the footprints found suggest)?
They must have been able to have seen the treeline to go to it right? So it must have been:
1) light enough to be able to see the treeline;
a) either by natural light OR
b) something that lit up the night sky OR
c) by a flashlight left on halfway down the slope (probably the least likely)
OR they couldn't see where they were going but remembered where the treeline was??
This all hinges on how dark it was because they assumedly would have been able to have seen to get firewood and start a fire down at the cedar.
Also, if they couldn't see, wouldn't it make falling off a ledge into the ravine a more legitimate fit to the injuries of the Ravine 4? This could perhaps be a timeline clue - that it was dark by the time those 4 died.
It would also I suppose support the "den was a plant" theory bc they wouldn't have had time to build it if they had died that way.
Dont forget the SNOW factor. Have you ever been out at night with lots of SNOW on the ground ? Even with no moonlight, its amazing what a difference a layer of SNOW can make to visibility.
There must have been some visibility for them to build a fire, climb trees and make a den/ camp in the ravine.
Regards
Star man
-
Does anyone know how dark it would have been on the slope at the supposed time they fled the tent? Was just reading a post that mentioned the flashlight found on top of the tent and it got me thinking. There was another one found some metres from the tent correct? Which one was turned on??
I was just thinking if it was dark, how would they have been able to see where they were running (or walking to in a composed manner as the footprints found suggest)?
They must have been able to have seen the treeline to go to it right? So it must have been:
1) light enough to be able to see the treeline;
a) either by natural light OR
b) something that lit up the night sky OR
c) by a flashlight left on halfway down the slope (probably the least likely)
OR they couldn't see where they were going but remembered where the treeline was??
This all hinges on how dark it was because they assumedly would have been able to have seen to get firewood and start a fire down at the cedar.
Also, if they couldn't see, wouldn't it make falling off a ledge into the ravine a more legitimate fit to the injuries of the Ravine 4? This could perhaps be a timeline clue - that it was dark by the time those 4 died.
It would also I suppose support the "den was a plant" theory bc they wouldn't have had time to build it if they had died that way.
Dont forget the SNOW factor. Have you ever been out at night with lots of SNOW on the ground ? Even with no moonlight, its amazing what a difference a layer of SNOW can make to visibility.
There must have been some visibility for them to build a fire, climb trees and make a den/ camp in the ravine.
Regards
Star man
The Snow would be adequate enough for that. It wouldnt need to be Torches, etc. And the eyes adjust to the poor light after a short time.
-
Does anyone know how dark it would have been on the slope at the supposed time they fled the tent? Was just reading a post that mentioned the flashlight found on top of the tent and it got me thinking. There was another one found some metres from the tent correct? Which one was turned on??
I was just thinking if it was dark, how would they have been able to see where they were running (or walking to in a composed manner as the footprints found suggest)?
They must have been able to have seen the treeline to go to it right? So it must have been:
1) light enough to be able to see the treeline;
a) either by natural light OR
b) something that lit up the night sky OR
c) by a flashlight left on halfway down the slope (probably the least likely)
OR they couldn't see where they were going but remembered where the treeline was??
This all hinges on how dark it was because they assumedly would have been able to have seen to get firewood and start a fire down at the cedar.
Also, if they couldn't see, wouldn't it make falling off a ledge into the ravine a more legitimate fit to the injuries of the Ravine 4? This could perhaps be a timeline clue - that it was dark by the time those 4 died.
It would also I suppose support the "den was a plant" theory bc they wouldn't have had time to build it if they had died that way.
Dont forget the SNOW factor. Have you ever been out at night with lots of SNOW on the ground ? Even with no moonlight, its amazing what a difference a layer of SNOW can make to visibility.
There must have been some visibility for them to build a fire, climb trees and make a den/ camp in the ravine.
Regards
Star man
The Snow would be adequate enough for that. It wouldnt need to be Torches, etc. And the eyes adjust to the poor light after a short time.
Yeah. I think they must have some visibility even if it was not great.
Regards
Star man
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
Well the only implication that springs to mind is that they could have got by without any flashlights. Its possible that the SNOW provided enough reflection. But I would have thought it would still have been darker in the woods.
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
A flashlight was found 400 m down the slope. It was said to have been switched off and batteries spent when found. So they took the flashlight with them and then discarded it. To me it's says it was dark, but not impossible to see.
Regards
Star man
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
A flashlight was found 400 m down the slope. It was said to have been switched off and batteries spent when found. So they took the flashlight with them and then discarded it. To me it's says it was dark, but not impossible to see.
Regards
Star man
The flashlight was switched on (presumed to be left as a beacon for the return)Sheet 191
Radiogram
Received by Sysoev
7/3-59
28 people continued to search all day long period No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period Tomorrow March 8 is declared a day off period I think that the search must be stopped till the end of April period The weather is getting worse period Tomorrow with me fly three Muscovites, it is desirable to take off part of the civilians.
Maslennikov
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
A flashlight was found 400 m down the slope. It was said to have been switched off and batteries spent when found. So they took the flashlight with them and then discarded it. To me it's says it was dark, but not impossible to see.
Regards
Star man
The flashlight was switched on (presumed to be left as a beacon for the return)Sheet 191
Radiogram
Received by Sysoev
7/3-59
28 people continued to search all day long period No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period Tomorrow March 8 is declared a day off period I think that the search must be stopped till the end of April period The weather is getting worse period Tomorrow with me fly three Muscovites, it is desirable to take off part of the civilians.
Maslennikov
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198
On the Dyatlov pass.com site, under search, tent, there is highlighted text saying that second flashlight found 400 metres down slope, switched off, battery spent?
Regards
Star man
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
A flashlight was found 400 m down the slope. It was said to have been switched off and batteries spent when found. So they took the flashlight with them and then discarded it. To me it's says it was dark, but not impossible to see.
Regards
Star man
The flashlight was switched on (presumed to be left as a beacon for the return)Sheet 191
Radiogram
Received by Sysoev
7/3-59
28 people continued to search all day long period No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period Tomorrow March 8 is declared a day off period I think that the search must be stopped till the end of April period The weather is getting worse period Tomorrow with me fly three Muscovites, it is desirable to take off part of the civilians.
Maslennikov
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198 (https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198)
On the Dyatlov pass.com site, under search, tent, there is highlighted text saying that second flashlight found 400 metres down slope, switched off, battery spent?
Regards
Star man
That's not the only error on the main site kewl1
-
Do you think this has any implications then for the flashlights??
A flashlight was found 400 m down the slope. It was said to have been switched off and batteries spent when found. So they took the flashlight with them and then discarded it. To me it's says it was dark, but not impossible to see.
Regards
Star man
The flashlight was switched on (presumed to be left as a beacon for the return)Sheet 191
Radiogram
Received by Sysoev
7/3-59
28 people continued to search all day long period No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period Tomorrow March 8 is declared a day off period I think that the search must be stopped till the end of April period The weather is getting worse period Tomorrow with me fly three Muscovites, it is desirable to take off part of the civilians.
Maslennikov
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-136-198
I would have thought that the Flashlight found under the Tent was turned on by one of the Dyatlov Group before they fled the Tent in a hurry. It must have been darker in the Tent than outside ! ?
-
I don't get it....was the flashlight found under the tent or 450m down the slope??
Good point about the darkness within the tent, though I'm assuming one flashlight among 9 people isn't very efficient (this is excluding the "toilet flashlight" which was found ON the tent, right?)….unless the flashlight was somehow attached to the top centre of the tent, thus illuminating the entire tent?
I remember a post by WAB that showed the types of flashlights found and that one looked like a camera almost?? Maybe they had those to use?
Also, is anyone else interested in the broken ski??
-
I don't get it....was the flashlight found under the tent or 450m down the slope??
Good point about the darkness within the tent, though I'm assuming one flashlight among 9 people isn't very efficient (this is excluding the "toilet flashlight" which was found ON the tent, right?)….unless the flashlight was somehow attached to the top centre of the tent, thus illuminating the entire tent?
I remember a post by WAB that showed the types of flashlights found and that one looked like a camera almost?? Maybe they had those to use?
Also, is anyone else interested in the broken ski??
My interpretation of the case file is that it means 450m below the tent (down the slope).
I'd guess that the ski rocked in the high winds (for 3 weeks) until it snapped?
-
I don't get it....was the flashlight found under the tent or 450m down the slope??
Good point about the darkness within the tent, though I'm assuming one flashlight among 9 people isn't very efficient (this is excluding the "toilet flashlight" which was found ON the tent, right?)….unless the flashlight was somehow attached to the top centre of the tent, thus illuminating the entire tent?
I remember a post by WAB that showed the types of flashlights found and that one looked like a camera almost?? Maybe they had those to use?
Also, is anyone else interested in the broken ski??
My interpretation of the case file is that it means 450m below the tent (down the slope).
I'd guess that the ski rocked in the high winds (for 3 weeks) until it snapped?
Definitely a flashlight was found at the Tent and it was turned on apparently.
-
I don't get it....was the flashlight found under the tent or 450m down the slope??
Good point about the darkness within the tent, though I'm assuming one flashlight among 9 people isn't very efficient (this is excluding the "toilet flashlight" which was found ON the tent, right?)….unless the flashlight was somehow attached to the top centre of the tent, thus illuminating the entire tent?
I remember a post by WAB that showed the types of flashlights found and that one looked like a camera almost?? Maybe they had those to use?
Also, is anyone else interested in the broken ski??
How exactly was the ski found? Don't remember reading about a broken ski?
Regards
Star man
-
I don't get it....was the flashlight found under the tent or 450m down the slope??
Good point about the darkness within the tent, though I'm assuming one flashlight among 9 people isn't very efficient (this is excluding the "toilet flashlight" which was found ON the tent, right?)….unless the flashlight was somehow attached to the top centre of the tent, thus illuminating the entire tent?
I remember a post by WAB that showed the types of flashlights found and that one looked like a camera almost?? Maybe they had those to use?
The flashlight on the tent was suppose to be still working when the search team arrived so must have been switched off? Or is this another error in the files?
Regards
Star man
Also, is anyone else interested in the broken ski??
My interpretation of the case file is that it means 450m below the tent (down the slope).
I'd guess that the ski rocked in the high winds (for 3 weeks) until it snapped?
Definitely a flashlight was found at the Tent and it was turned on apparently.
-
Definitely a flashlight was found at the Tent and it was turned on apparently.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300
-
Hi Star Man - re: broken ski: "No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period" from the radiogram sent - I think Nigel posted it?
-
Definitely a flashlight was found at the Tent and it was turned on apparently.
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-298-300
Apologies. It was apparently turned off when found.
-
Hi Star Man - re: broken ski: "No results in 450 meters under the tent found flashlight turned on comma 20 meters from the tent a piece of broken ski period" from the radiogram sent - I think Nigel posted it?
Thanks. That's interesting. Anyone know what their skis were made of?
Regards
Star man
-
From Wikipedia:
"In 1950 Howard Head introduced the Head Standard, constructed by sandwiching aluminum alloy around a plywood core. The design included steel edges (invented in 1928 in Austria,[52]) and the exterior surfaces were made of phenol formaldehyde resin which could hold wax. This hugely successful ski was unique at the time in having been designed for the recreational market, rather than for racing.[53] 1962: a fibreglass ski, Kneissl's White Star, was used by Karl Schranz to win two gold medals at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.[53] By the late '60s fibreglass had mostly replaced aluminum."
According to "A Short History of Skis" on the "International Skiing History Association" website: Before 1926 they were made mostly of wood. After that year, steel edges were introduced. In 1928, in France, a solid aluminum ski was prototyped. By 1945, they had sandwiched wood between aluminum laminate, by 1946, the wood was sandwiched by a plastic material. See above Wikipedia quote for 1950. In 1952, the first fiberglass enforced plastic ski is introduced, but is only popularized by 1959.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-08.jpg
By the looks of the skis in the pictures they are really thin and I'm not sure you could get that curve upward with wood? We have to consider maybe too that they were students and probably couldn't afford the latest in ski technology; plus the fact that fiberglass skis were only popularized the year they died....I doubt they were fibreglass. The above picture appears to show ski poles that look almost like bamboo....note the notches in the wood.
So wooden ski poles....perhaps wooden skis?? But again, the skis just don't appear to be wooden to me. That leaves aluminum.
Although if a ski was "broken" as in the radiogram, I'm doubting it was aluminum, even the wood sandwiched by aluminum type. Unless it becomes brittle when frozen?? If a ski is broken it must have been wood or fiberglass.
Anyway....I am seriously doubting whether the wind could break either.
-
From Wikipedia:
"In 1950 Howard Head introduced the Head Standard, constructed by sandwiching aluminum alloy around a plywood core. The design included steel edges (invented in 1928 in Austria,[52]) and the exterior surfaces were made of phenol formaldehyde resin which could hold wax. This hugely successful ski was unique at the time in having been designed for the recreational market, rather than for racing.[53] 1962: a fibreglass ski, Kneissl's White Star, was used by Karl Schranz to win two gold medals at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.[53] By the late '60s fibreglass had mostly replaced aluminum."
According to "A Short History of Skis" on the "International Skiing History Association" website: Before 1926 they were made mostly of wood. After that year, steel edges were introduced. In 1928, in France, a solid aluminum ski was prototyped. By 1945, they had sandwiched wood between aluminum laminate, by 1946, the wood was sandwiched by a plastic material. See above Wikipedia quote for 1950. In 1952, the first fiberglass enforced plastic ski is introduced, but is only popularized by 1959.
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Krivonischenko-camera-film1-08.jpg
By the looks of the skis in the pictures they are really thin and I'm not sure you could get that curve upward with wood? We have to consider maybe too that they were students and probably couldn't afford the latest in ski technology; plus the fact that fiberglass skis were only popularized the year they died....I doubt they were fibreglass. The above picture appears to show ski poles that look almost like bamboo....note the notches in the wood.
So wooden ski poles....perhaps wooden skis?? But again, the skis just don't appear to be wooden to me. That leaves aluminum.
Although if a ski was "broken" as in the radiogram, I'm doubting it was aluminum, even the wood sandwiched by aluminum type. Unless it becomes brittle when frozen?? If a ski is broken it must have been wood or fiberglass.
Anyway....I am seriously doubting whether the wind could break either.
Have made a few checks on aluminium and it is unlikely to suffer from failures as a result of fatigue or brittle fracture under the conditions on Kholat Syakhl, even it was left in high winds and cold temperatures for 3 weeks.
Aluminium doesn't have a fatigue limit like steel, and remains ductile down to very low temperatures. Although I haven't made any calculations on this, I can't see that a ski would fail due to wind speed. If it was stuck in the ground then highest force would be on the bottom of the ski. An aluminium clad plywood ski would also be very strong and plyable. Ths leads me to think that if there was a broken ski then it was not something that happened after the group died. In other words it broke before the event or during the event.
Where is the info on this broken ski? It might be important.
Regards
Star man
-
Hi Star Man - yes I am thinking the same thing....it could be a really important detail if it could not have been broken by the wind.
Nigel - I believe you posted the radiogram snippet....what are your thoughts on the matter? And is there any more detail with regards to broken skis anywhere in the case files??
-
The matter of the broken ski crops up elsewhere in the Forum as well.
-
Okay so do you suggest I go to the "search tab" and enter "broken ski"?
-
I have used the search tool, but could only find reference to the broken ski pole.
Regards
Star man
-
Okay so do you suggest I go to the "search tab" and enter "broken ski"?
Try typing in SKI POLES in the search box.
-
Is that in reference to the purposefully broken ski pole supposedly used to anchor the tent??
Star Man and I are after more info on a broken ski - not a broken ski pole.
-
Is that in reference to the purposefully broken ski pole supposedly used to anchor the tent??
Star Man and I are after more info on a broken ski - not a broken ski pole.
Well there is good old GOOGLE.
-
LOL.
-
LOL.
I know. But seriously the amount of information that can be got from the World Wide Web these days is amazing and its getting better and better.
-
On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:
https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg
It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!
-
On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:
https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg
It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!
Yes and I think that Loosecannon has also said it was a flashlight. What surprises Me though is that the flashlight doesnt look that substantial for such an expedition ! ?
-
My Dear friends and colleagues!
Unfortunately I can answer only with some delay. At me the constant time trouble connected with the basic work. But I will try to answer that that I can find, read and I can answer that I know precisely.
I answer to this message with delay because I only have come nearer to it in reading.
On a completely separately note - was just rereading this "Light" post and WAB's responses....do you think the "camera" around Semyon's neck (or as I believe - around his wrist) was this??:
https://d.radikal.ru/d06/1903/4c/ee48ef976978.jpg
It looks just like a camera....plus imagine the implications: Semyon would never have grabbed the camera to photograph something. It would simply have been a light source!!!
If I have correctly understood question here it is told about that, could not be small lamp instead of the chamber round Simeon's neck.
In the photo it is visible that it is subject of form Parallelepiped (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelepiped ) with the rounded off edges. It is absolutely precisely identified as camera "Zorky" case. Till now it is not known, whether there was there camera or it there was empty case. Probably that before the beginning of events Simeon has left the camera in tent, and round Simeon's neck there is only empty case. It could so arrive because has decided not to remove case, and the camera place there only in the morning.
If it there had camera that his mothers have given the faulty camera will be strange. After such bathing in water the camera necessarily should become unfit for use. It had no protection against water.
The small lamp at it was nearby jacket pocket when they went on skis lengthways the river Auspia. It is visible in photos.
On the Maslennikov scheme is mark that on half of way from tent to cedar the small lamp has been found. Quite probably it also was Simeon's small lamp because on its jacket in the bottom of small lamp have not found.
All events occurred at night (in night-time) therefore such development of actions was quite possible.
But even on photo not so high quality mix small lamp and a case from the camera very difficultly.
-
So you think what was around his neck was a camera case and not a square flashlight??
-
So you think what was around his neck was a camera case and not a square flashlight??
I believe thats what WAB means. I was of 2 minds as to whether or not it was a flashlight.
-
Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.
So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??
-
Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.
So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??
I think WAB may want to answer that one. Iam not sure.
-
Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.
So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??
I believe they tried to develop the photos on Semyons camera but they were too damaged to be of any use. So I think it was a camera.
Regards
Star man
-
Well....BOOOOOO. I thought I was on to something there.
So can we say for sure it was a camera case and NOT a flashlight??
I believe they tried to develop the photos on Semyons camera but they were too damaged to be of any use. So I think it was a camera.
Regards
Star man
Damaged is debatable! - https://dyatlovpass.com/controversy#zolotaryovcamera kewl1
-
It looks a lot more like camera to me, cause the round thing is in the middle of the rectangular base and this is how camera looks, opposed to flashlight where the round piece is on top of the rectangular base.
(https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/132768738031_/Vintage-Soviet-Russian-Pocket-Flashlight-Army-Lamp-USSR.jpg[img]
[url=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/wYzJrMR/619-NA-GZ6r-L-SX425.jpg)[/url]
-
(https://i.ibb.co/wYzJrMR/619-NA-GZ6r-L-SX425.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/bsHYD9c/Vintage-Soviet-Russian-Pocket-Flashlight-Army-Lamp-USSR.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Okay - yes, I think it looks more like camera than a square flashlight.
I also think it looks more like a case than an actual camera as there aren't as many "details" on it as there should be and it is all one colour.
I'm also looking at this pic:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Zolotaryov-camera-18.jpg
and thinking that it DOES look a little bent - the lines of the rectangle shape aren't straight.
Could this be Semyon's camera case, while the actual camera was left inside the tent? This would put to rest the "secret camera" Semyon had.
Does anyone know for sure if his camera and the damaged roll of film in it was found on his body or in the tent?
I realize this should probably be a separate thread, but the square thing found on the body could have been a flashlight....thus posted in the "light" thread