Zolotaryov's photos in a new light

[SURI]

Zolotaryov's photos prove that he had not only the case with him, but also a camera, at the time of the incident. I prefer to be guided by what I see rather than what anyone has written or said.

In this evening photo he took, a tent is visible, with footprints running around it. The most traces are at the white spot, the photographer's main interest. Dyatlov's flashlight is on the tent (so he went outside) and in the background, a stuck ice axe can be seen standing by the tent.

ORIGINAL PHOTO
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Zolotaryov-camera-04.jpg



The ice axe shimmers a little at the ends, just like in the photo when Zolotaryov is holding it on the bus.



I think it is here, by the tent, that the beginning of the incident is captured. More photos followed by the cedar tree, in the light of a burning fire.


In one of those forest photos, burning, charred branches and logs are visible in the foreground.  There are trees in the background. In the lower left, the photographer's footprint is visible.

ORIGINAL PHOTO
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Zolotaryov-camera-03.jpg



All of this proves that the photos are clearly from the time of the evening incident and that the tent was on a slope, without an avalanche.

At least "one" of the hikers did not suffer any panic from the avalanche, the cold, or the explosion. He felt completely safe during the entire incident, he did not have to "freeze" like the other five. His photoshoot was planned. Circumstances that took place on the slope led him all the way to the forest, but he didn't stop taking photos there either.

Photos must be viewed in the dark at maximum brightness. You can also add various filters.

[amashilu]

Suri, I do see a pretty definitive line in this photo. I put arrows on it, just to point out the line as an object of interest, as it is somewhat faint, but undeniably there.

[Axelrod]

Defects in photographic film are common. It's strange to me that a single piece of film, containing no photographs, survived for 30 years, and then is kept for another 30 years. Or did Lev Ivanov decide that it contained something important?

[Ziljoe]

This is just an experiment, I removed the bright white part . This gives a better tonal Ballance to the full shot ( I don't know if it's the full frame). You will need to tap the picture to get the better resolution. Then zoom in to the right , just off centre to the darkest tones, it's like spruce / fir and trees seem to be silhouetted. Then slowly zoom out and notice the lighting of the whole frame, it does look like a snow area in the foreground with light reflecting and a slight perspective going off in the distance from the light grey shadow on the left and darker shades on the right to the horizon line.


Similar greying out in the last photos of the hikers going over the pass and erecting the tent platform.

Not that it will tell us anything unless it is imagined to be a photo from Zolos camera along the route to the cedar/ Ravine .

[amashilu]

Suri, this is a good topic!

Zolotaryev's photos 7 and 8 are interesting to me.

To me, they say:

1) Zolotaryev was outside the tent, taking pictures.

2) Zolotaryev took 2 photos in rapid succession of the same thing, a ball of light of some kind (meteor, plasma, rocket, etc.). I'm sure this has been done before somewhere, but I am doing it here anyway, presenting these two photos in which I outline the edges of the same area in both, to demonstrate that they are actually pictures of the same thing.

3) The ball of light was moving.

4) The "fallout" beneath the ball of light was moving with the ball (ice, dust? plasma? comet tail?) and very quickly generated something that has been called an "eagle" across the ball's face. What moves like this beneath a ball of light? Does the same "fallout" happen under a falling rocket stage?

If these photos were taken on the night of the tragedy, how likely is it that the ball of light had something to do with the tragedy? I think the odds are pretty good. To me, this could be indication that a few of the theories proposed for what happened that night are ruled out (such as avalanche -- unless the ball of light somehow generated an avalanche).

[SURI]

I think it's a burning branch and flames on the branch. I don't see any movement there.

[amashilu]

In the second photo, something has moved over the face of the ball. (People have dubbed this photo the "eagle" because it kind of looks like one.) I think that indicates movement of some kind. I don't know. That is just what it looks like to me.

[SURI]

I think it's just an illusion because the second picture is bigger, so you can see more unevenness. The other distances look the same. Only the flame on the branch can move.

[SURI]

And speaking of burning, I think Krivonishchenko was set on fire in a tree and was forced to jump into the snow to put out his leg. He bit off a piece of skin in pain and lost consciousness. And since he wasn't moving, he froze to death.

[amashilu]

This is photo 7, untouched. Do you notice the white tail trailing off the light ball? What do you think that indicates?

[SURI]

It's the same in both photos, only it's more visible in this one because the bright spot is overexposed.

[amashilu]

Teddy has labeled this photo "A bright luminous spot against the open end of a dead tree trunk ...."

Do you see a dead tree trunk? I have been trying to see it.

As far as I can remember, there were no dead trees around the tent. So if this is a tree trunk, where was this photo taken? Was it taken after the group had descended into the trees?

Same questions about the next photo.

Ziljoe suggests there are silhouettes of trees off to the right. That would also indicate that this was in the trees, not on the slope by the tent.

I wonder if on another forum or in another discussion, someone has already asked and answered these questions.

[sarapuk]

The photos dilemma crops up a lot. Its very difficult if not impossible to say what those images are. They could be photos taken and subsequently damaged by water. One or two look like photos of tent fabric. One or two look like balls of light, maybe the infamous orbs that crop up in UFO mysteries. One could be a photo taken outside the tent with the tops of 3 or 4 heads showing and a ball or balls of light in the background.

[amashilu]

Yes, I guess what seems important is that Zolotaryev snapped these two photos of a ball of light in quick succession, one right after the other, at night, away from the tent -- hence, after the initial departure from the tent and descent down the slope and maybe right in the middle of the big event. The photos seem like a huge clue that can't be ignored.

[Ziljoe]

I do believe that these photos have ploughed through several times but sometimes a refresh can bring interest and something new may pop up.

The alleged photo of the 3 heads was found to be the  holes for the sprocket in the corner of the film. The white marks by all accounts are just that, marks on the film. however , the two eagle photos do seem to show something because of the tone reacting with the bright part. I think the branch like, or cluster of branches part in the image is some kind of damage on the lense but for me the light object suggests a torch beam and the alleged eagle is actually the antler of a moose /elk  as the curves that are repeated do seem to share the fractal like properties of moose antlers.

It would be great to have the full size photos of this set. The fact that these photos exist without the full negative suggests to me that it's done by design , to add mystery, 

[SURI]

Here is something written about it

https://www.dyatlov-pass-incident.com/valentin-yakimenkos-study-groups-negatives/

[SURI]

I, on the other hand, think that it is a real branch, which is being consumed by the flame, from which the light emanates. There are several intertwined branches in the photo, which are characteristic of cedar.

[amashilu]

The alleged photo of the 3 heads was found to be the  holes for the sprocket in the corner of the film.

Ziljoe, I recall reading somewhere, as you apparently did, the "conclusion" about the three heads being sprockets on the film, and my response was astonishment and disbelief. Do you believe it? Do you know of any proof?

Below are three of the photos. The first two show actual sprockets along the edges of the negatives, and the third is "the heads" that someone somewhere claimed to be sprockets.

[amashilu]

I, on the other hand, think that it is a real branch, which is being consumed by the flame, from which the light emanates. There are several intertwined branches in the photo, which are characteristic of cedar.

Suri, the difficulty with seeing this bright orb as a torch, or a branch on fire, is that the orb is smoothly outlined, like an orb. If you google something like "pictures of fire at night" you will see how fire looks at night on film. It is wild and twisted and constantly in motion. I don't think it is ever smooth and contained and evenly outlined like the orb in these photos.

[SURI]

I, on the other hand, think that it is a real branch, which is being consumed by the flame, from which the light emanates. There are several intertwined branches in the photo, which are characteristic of cedar.

Suri, the difficulty with seeing this bright orb as a torch, or a branch on fire, is that the orb is smoothly outlined, like an orb. If you google something like "pictures of fire at night" you will see how fire looks at night on film. It is wild and twisted and constantly in motion. I don't think it is ever smooth and contained and evenly outlined like the orb in these photos.

I'll try to show you this photo I found somewhere. It's a shame it's not in color.

Near the branch, brighter spots of the same intensity as the "eagle" are visible, these are flames. They are also slightly visible on the right side under the branch. The rest is the light they give off, and because it was taken in the dark with an old camera, it looks like this.

[Ziljoe]

The alleged photo of the 3 heads was found to be the  holes for the sprocket in the corner of the film.

Ziljoe, I recall reading somewhere, as you apparently did, the "conclusion" about the three heads being sprockets on the film, and my response was astonishment and disbelief. Do you believe it? Do you know of any proof?

Below are three of the photos. The first two show actual sprockets along the edges of the negatives, and the third is "the heads" that someone somewhere claimed to be sprockets.

I'm sure it's on this forum and one of the forum members did a lot of work regarding this group of photos. If I remember correctly he did a reversal on what he thought he was seeing.

I think he found the original frames or at least more of the edge extending where the film gaps / sprockets are.( As they are photos of photos) . Also, I think the 3 heads photo ( someone also claimed they were rocks ) is just the changed contrast on the very last alleged photo of the blurred light( frame 34).

The Photo called 3 Heads is photo called, frame 34 . In frame 34 you can see the same 3 dark spots and the horizontal lines match up .

https://dyatlovpass.com/camera-krivonischenko

[amashilu]

I do believe that these photos have ploughed through several times but sometimes a refresh can bring interest and something new may pop up.

Before I jump into what I want to jump into, I want to respond to this statement you made a little bit ago. You have made similar statements before, which taken altogether, kind of sound like you are exhausted with people going over the same old territory again and again. I want you to be okay with this process, since this is how advances are made. You get to a dead end, and you patiently start at the beginning and go over everything again. With all the people reading this forum and studying the documents, who knows what will happen if we stay open to all possibilities and new ideas.

Okay, regarding the photos -- you mention that the 3 Heads photo was actually created from a brightening of Krivonischenko's frame 34, the famous descending meteor-like thing:



So I loaded frame 34 into Photoshop, and tried several different methods until finally the "heads" showed up, through a combination of levels, brightening, and contrast:



I still don't think those bumps are sprockets. If they were, where are the rest of them? And they are not evenly spaced, as sprockets would always be.

But more interesting than that is -- now, this photo appears to show the same bright orb as the others photos, with what Teddy calls a "dead tree trunk" beneath it, except said tree trunk is now 90 degrees sideways. This means that the camera-person turned the camera 90 degrees counter-clockwise. This puts the heads, or sprockets, along the left side. I guess that means they aren't heads. Do you agree?

[Ziljoe]

I do believe that these photos have ploughed through several times but sometimes a refresh can bring interest and something new may pop up.

Before I jump into what I want to jump into, I want to respond to this statement you made a little bit ago. You have made similar statements before, which taken altogether, kind of sound like you are exhausted with people going over the same old territory again and again. I want you to be okay with this process, since this is how advances are made. You get to a dead end, and you patiently start at the beginning and go over everything again. With all the people reading this forum and studying the documents, who knows what will happen if we stay open to all possibilities and new ideas.

Okay, regarding the photos -- you mention that the 3 Heads photo was actually created from a brightening of Krivonischenko's frame 34, the famous descending meteor-like thing:



So I loaded frame 34 into Photoshop, and tried several different methods until finally the "heads" showed up, through a combination of levels, brightening, and contrast:



I still don't think those bumps are sprockets. If they were, where are the rest of them? And they are not evenly spaced, as sprockets would always be.

But more interesting than that is -- now, this photo appears to show the same bright orb as the others photos, with what Teddy calls a "dead tree trunk" beneath it, except said tree trunk is now 90 degrees sideways. This means that the camera-person turned the camera 90 degrees counter-clockwise. This puts the heads, or sprockets, along the left side. I guess that means they aren't heads. Do you agree?

I am aware of my previous comments about things having already been discussed and I mention it above not as an exhausted frustration but that information already exists. So when I say several, I mean the question and answers already exist. I appreciate that they are hard to find with in the forum posts because they don't all get discussed under a relative heading and the shear volume of posts has made it difficult to file.

I shall do my best to locate them but they are hard to find and it means a lot of reading to show the exact post. The frustration is to find the debate and supply the conclusion without all the small chit chat in those posts.

Obviously there was far less threads 8 years ago so it was easier to read and follow the developments, even then it was confusing because much information had been perpetually twisted by media sources then quoted as facts .

Anyway, upwards and onwards and sometimes backwards we will have to go.

I read about the three heads and it being proven to be the sprockets, it got to the point that there was no argument. I shall try to find it.

The light in frame 34 is believed to be how the center of the camera aperture reacts and is from a different film to those of Zolos . I'm sure the original frames show the sprockets. I'll get back soon and please forgive this draft. Busy....

[Ziljoe]

A more technical explanation is here.

https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34

But I'm sure the negative of frame 34 exists where it is connected to another 3-5 frames where all the sprocket holes can be seen across the 5 or so frames. I'm sure they lined up. I will need to try and find it. I think the reason that they are not shown is they are cropped photos of the negatives and modern photos of old photos along with some of the photos we have  actually being photos of a photo from a monitor, possibly an old CRT monster which also adds to the confusion. They only way to see any proper detail would mean having the original film and a microscope.

[SURI]

You might be looking for this thread.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0

[Ziljoe]

You might be looking for this thread.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.0

Excellent SURI. That's the very one!. Thank you.

On this page of the thread we can see the joined frame.

https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=648.60

[Ziljoe]

I still don't think those bumps are sprockets. If they were, where are the rest of them? And they are not evenly spaced, as sprockets would always be.

But more interesting than that is -- now, this photo appears to show the same bright orb as the others photos, with what Teddy calls a "dead tree trunk" beneath it, except said tree trunk is now 90 degrees sideways. This means that the camera-person turned the camera 90 degrees counter-clockwise. This puts the heads, or sprockets, along the left side. I guess that means they aren't heads. Do you agree?

Sorry amashilu, I missed this bit . I only think that the 3 dark shadows are from the sprockets. I don't think it's possible that frame 34 and the two eagle photos are the same light . I'm not familiar with teddy's dead tree trunk photo unless you mean the eagle photos?.

[SURI]

Someone wants to see balls everywhere. I also think that frame 34 is not related to the other "balls".

[sarapuk]

Yes, I guess what seems important is that Zolotaryev snapped these two photos of a ball of light in quick succession, one right after the other, at night, away from the tent -- hence, after the initial departure from the tent and descent down the slope and maybe right in the middle of the big event. The photos seem like a huge clue that can't be ignored.

Nicely put. It does look like photos that were taken and not camera film that was damaged before being exposed. Yes huge clue or clues.

[sarapuk]

I do believe that these photos have ploughed through several times but sometimes a refresh can bring interest and something new may pop up.

The alleged photo of the 3 heads was found to be the  holes for the sprocket in the corner of the film. The white marks by all accounts are just that, marks on the film. however , the two eagle photos do seem to show something because of the tone reacting with the bright part. I think the branch like, or cluster of branches part in the image is some kind of damage on the lense but for me the light object suggests a torch beam and the alleged eagle is actually the antler of a moose /elk  as the curves that are repeated do seem to share the fractal like properties of moose antlers.

It would be great to have the full size photos of this set. The fact that these photos exist without the full negative suggests to me that it's done by design , to add mystery,

Well I'm stretched to find anything that looks like antlers or such like ! Sprocket in the corner of the film !  We need to see the camera itself.