What is looking at me?

[cz]

Hi DPI enthusiasts,

I have been looking at the photos of the tent quite intensively and stumbled
across one particularity that puzzles me. Below, I show you two photos of the
tent taken by V. Brusnitsin; these versions of the photos are taken from the gallery
(https://dyatlovpass.com/gallery-1959-search-part1). They show Karelin and Koptelov at the tent, and
the gallery states that at least one of these photos is from the archive of A. Koskin.







What strikes me in the upper photo is a somewhat ghostly apparition in the upper left part of
the image, which does not appear to be present in the second photo. I have here marked the
corresponding section of the photo by a red ellipse for clarity. I hope you see what I mean.





What I distinguish there is quite reminiscent of two nostrils, a long snout, and two eyes with
maybe partly open lids. Frankly, the face of an animal like a bear or maybe a dog, which is looking at me.

So how did it get there?
One possibility I can imagine is a double exposure. The search team came without cameras and
used those they found in the tent. Possibly, a member of the Dyatlov group did take another photo in the
mysterious night, but did not take the necessary action to expose the next frame of the film before
being forced to neglect the camera. Then, the first photo taken by the search team with
that camera (or rather film) could be blurred with the last taken by the Dyatlov group. Whether
such a scenario is really plausible with the cameras being used is not entirely clear to me.
If so, it would have interesting implications.     

For this scenario to be plausible, the photo in question must be the first one taken by the search team with
one of the cameras. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to verify this.

A double exposure would be consistent with the second photo not showing the same apparition.
Because the photos are highly similar but show a different section, with the first capturing
more of the scenery, it might be thought that these are two sections of the same photo (negative).
As the second one is considerably sharper though, I doubt this is the case, and we have two
distinct negatives here, which is consistent with a double exposure.

What also concerns me is that when looking at what appears to be versions of the same photos, posted
here in the forum (Materials from 1959, photography; http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=38.0 ),
I cannot make out the same apparition. I think one might see some remnants, but not enough to be sure. These
version posted in the forum appears to me a photo of the photo, which raises the question how the
other images were digitized. Depending on the technical details, it would be possible to (a) highlight
structure not easily seen when the image is developed in the conventional way or (b) imprint any
structure totally unrelated to the image, e.g., by using some inappropriate background in the scanning
process. This is another question mark, which I am currently unable to resolve.

I have not seen any discussion on this anywhere so far.
So, I am looking forward to hearing what you think.

Cheers, cz

[Jacques-Emile]

I suggest schmutz in dirty developer.

[cz]

I suggest schmutz in dirty developer.

Always a handy option but I fail to see how schmutz can produce such a well arranged structure. 

[cz]

OK. I am not yet giving it up. To highlight what I mean, I superimposed an image of a bear with roughly fitting proportions. Maybe somebody sees something similar. This is not a shatoun (a bear that does not hybernate), thus the green background....

[Star man]

It could be some kind of reflected image?  Looks like an inverted image of a person but it is unclear

[sarapuk]

Quoted from  CZ ;   [[  What I distinguish there is quite reminiscent of two nostrils, a long snout, and two eyes with
maybe partly open lids. Frankly, the face of an animal like a bear or maybe a dog, which is looking at me.
So how did it get there?
One possibility I can imagine is a double exposure. The search team came without cameras and
used those they found in the tent. Possibly, a member of the Dyatlov group did take another photo in the
mysterious night, but did not take the necessary action to expose the next frame of the film before
being forced to neglect the camera. Then, the first photo taken by the search team with
that camera (or rather film) could be blurred with the last taken by the Dyatlov group. Whether
such a scenario is really plausible with the cameras being used is not entirely clear to me.
If so, it would have interesting implications.  ]]   


It is so easy to imagine that there is something there when in all likely hood there is nothing there.  It is easy to imagine a Bear or Dog or Wolf or whatever. The search teams had cameras. Why use one of the Dyatlov Groups cameras when it may be needed for evidence.

[cz]

The search teams had cameras. Why use one of the Dyatlov Groups cameras when it may be needed for evidence.

This is not correct as far as I know. The search group came without cameras and it is known that the cameras from
the tent were used in the beginning.

It is so easy to imagine that there is something there when in all likely hood there is nothing there.  It is easy to imagine a Bear or Dog or Wolf or whatever.

Right. But sometimes when you see something, there is something. Whether true or not in the end, this conjecture could actually be tested by somebody with access to the negatives. This is in contrast to many other hypotheses discussed and one reason why I tried to push it a little. Maybe some such person gets interested to check...         

[cz]

It could be some kind of reflected image?  Looks like an inverted image of a person but it is unclear

I must say, I had a similar impression. Like those reflections one sometimes sees looking through a window

[sarapuk]

The search teams had cameras. Why use one of the Dyatlov Groups cameras when it may be needed for evidence.

This is not correct as far as I know. The search group came without cameras and it is known that the cameras from
the tent were used in the beginning.

It is so easy to imagine that there is something there when in all likely hood there is nothing there.  It is easy to imagine a Bear or Dog or Wolf or whatever.

Right. But sometimes when you see something, there is something. Whether true or not in the end, this conjecture could actually be tested by somebody with access to the negatives. This is in contrast to many other hypotheses discussed and one reason why I tried to push it a little. Maybe some such person gets interested to check...       

So who took all the photos of the search effort  !  ?  Yes I have suggested that we need a Forensic Photographer to inspect the Negatives.

[cz]

So who took all the photos of the search effort  !  ?  Yes I have suggested that we need a Forensic Photographer to inspect the Negatives.

Right. The team which first arrived at the tent had no cameras with them. Then more material and equipment was brought in. As far as I know, a camera from the tent was at least used to take pictures in the morgue, which is a remarkable treatment of evidence. Unfortunately, I cannot find the source of this piece of information at the moment, but it would also not resolve this issue. If a totally different camera was used here, the point is of course insubstantial.