Could the Lynx be the tent?

[cz]

Hi,

Looking at the photos attributed to Zolotarev's camera, which was still around his neck when he
was found dead in the ravine, it occurred to me that what I saw reminded me of a tent.
These photos were studied by Yakimenko, who was reminded of a Lynx instead.

I attached a figure with the possible outline of the tent indicated (solid lines correspond to
visible and dashed lines to invisible sections of the tent). The dimensions of the tent
are realistic. It would be seen at an angle of roughly 50 degrees where zero degrees means facing
the tent from the side (like on the investigation photo from Ivdel). Normally, when one adds
such indications, figures become much more suggestive. To me, this is not the case here. I find
the original more suggestive.

While I found some kind of a scale for many other pictures, I could not find a specific
explanation as to the scale of this one. It could be a tiny fraction of the image, which
would render the tent hypothesis weak. Also, there must have been some kind of illumination
(from inside or outside) to make this plausible.

While this image is certainly vague and could show many things, I find it plausible that Zolotarev
would have tried to capture any extraordinary event related to the tent on film. This would mean
that he was outside and possibly also that the tent was not the actual target of this shot.

At any rate, what do you think?

cz

[CalzagheChick]

I think that of the damaged film there's only one photo (the three head tops against bright background) that can safely be considered. Everything else looks like emulsion build up, exposure, and water damage to me. I'm just not comfortable putting any stock in tiny specks of film frames and calling it evidence of any single one of the many theories.

That being said, I'm always open. I will say that I do not see a tent. But I also don't see a lynx or a higher formed demon or an alien or a yeti either. Anything here is possible.

Kudos to your determination and attention to details!

[Loose}{Cannon]

Could be anything I guess.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Zolotarev 'pics' are actually negatives..... and a blown up fraction of a frame. 

What do you see now? 

[cz]

Hi,

great to hear your opinions!

@CalzagheChick: Yes, one should be cautious in interpreting these images as evidence for any particular hypothesis. Water damage has certainly to be considered, which brings me to a somewhat related question: Was the creek frozen in February when they died? Certainly, it was not when they were found in May, but I am not sure about real winter.

At any rate, I am not convinced that it is impossible that these images can tell us something. Not sure what exactly though. As far as I know, the "three heads" shot is the last from Krivo's camera, which was found in the tent. Not sure what to make of this either.

@Loose}{Cannon: Sure these images are negatives to start with. As so often, it seems hard to find definitive statements. I tried to look at Yakimenko's paper. Based on the way he shows the "three heads" shot (dark heads against bright background), I tend to believe that he shows positives. I think he mentions negatives (I know essentially zero Russian unfortunately) and of course he is aware of the difference. So, I assume it is supposed to be positives, but I may be wrong. This image (Lynx 2) must be about the only one for which he does not specify
a scale. What he says is that it reminds him of the (first) Lynx (photo 3a), for which he specifies 120 units,
i.e., about a tenth of the image. Lacking more detailed comments, I assume his general impression of similarity extends to size, which would then be about the same.

Even when you invert it, I continue to see a tent, but it is difficult to view this impartially once you have started seeing something. Even trying hard, I cannot see a Lynx (after looking at a good number of them). I am aware that the easiest person to fool is oneself, so it is good to get some independent feedback.

cz

[Loose}{Cannon]

To me.....    its looks like 3 to 4 people about 100m out in a ravine or on a slight ledge.

[CalzagheChick]

Totally see the face of Jesus in the inverted photo... and I'm not being a nonsensical jerk. Looking toward the end of the blurb on the right I see the face imprint of the Shroud of Turin. 

[Loose}{Cannon]

Looks like a bearded mans face wearing a beret.   

[CalzagheChick]

Coonskin cap LMAO

[SteveCalley]

Lynx is a jinx!

[Loose}{Cannon]

Lynx means what? 20-30 kg forest felid?

I have no idea where the names for those pictures came from.   

[cz]

Yep. Jesus or the three Kings would explain a lot...

I think these names were assigned by Yakimenko based on visual impression. They are purely descriptive (although subjective as we see) 

[CalzagheChick]

I'm almost positive the lynx description came from psychic analysis of the roll of damaged film that most people can make neither heads or tails of. A random person decided to do some form of analysis on the film and came up with some theory about higher forming demons explicitly manifesting themselves as animal forms and ectoplasm... there's an entire website that explains it if you can follow Yakimenko's analysis.

That's where I decided that my official stance is that the damaged film from the water is little more than a damaged mess of over exposure, water damage, and emulsion build-up from the development process. I'm just not comfortable entertaining the idea of higher level demons based upon the testimony of a self-proclaimed psychic guided by Jesus Christ and all the angels of Heaven (per the website).

In any case, you will see the photo's listed in order (most of them are a fragment of the frame of film) and each odd shape has a specific animal/creature name. I'm honestly not sure the psychic is claiming that these higher level demons are manifesting into these creatures or what the deal is. It's a very confusing write-up and far from any establish scientific study.

Yes, I believe in demons, angels, ghosts, hauntings, spirits, etc. Do I think that has anything to do with what happened on that mountain in 1959? No. I think there's a rational explanation that's right in front of us that we just can't quite see because we weren't there. We don't know the order in which they perished. Freak things happen every single day. We just weren't there so we probably can never know.

[cz]

MMMhhh. Personally, I believe in a rational explanation, and
my impression is that at least Yakimenko does so, too.

https://yadi.sk/i/eb9r3UTgfaMej

He participated in the search operation for the group in 1959, and
whether or not I share his conclusions or even consider his
results significant is irrelevant in order to acknowledge that he made an honest and reasonable
attempt to unearth some new information. The value of these information is certainly independent of
the adopted naming scheme, and the mere fact that some people interpret these images as evidence for more
esoteric theories is insufficient proof of their uselessness to me. Nonetheless, they may be
meaningless in the end.

[CalzagheChick]

Sorry I think I confused myself.

You're right. Yakimenko assigned the animal names to each film frame of the water-damaged film based on visual impression most likely.

The psychic analysis came much much much much much more recently. On some weird website. And that psycho-analytical interpretation is one hell of a theory to try to follow with an open mind. I mean I consider myself reasonably open-minded. But that is pushing my patience with this case a little. I've well established my feelings that these were real people with families that loved them--not some side freak show.

People just generally tend to refer to the photo frames by individual name assigned by Yakimenko for practicality. I mean, let's face it. When looking at everything, it's a TON of information to keep organized in any sort of reasonable system. I'm rather impressed even with this website's ability to keep everything so ordered as I know it must take a crap ton of man hours to have put it all together so nicely.