Regarding the photos from the camera found on Zolotaryov

[Topaze]

I’m not sure that the photos presented by Yakimenko in 2015 as sky shots actually are. We know the camera remained in the water with Zolotaryov for nearly four months; it's  already a miracle that they could be processed at all. These photos are all botched, blurry, and poorly exposed. One ot them strangely caught my attention. It shows a shape that’s too distinctive to be natural. A cloud of smoke couldn’t create that—nothing could produce it randomly; the contours are too well-defined.



I would interpret it (I’m speaking hypothetically, and this is just my personal opinion) as a vehicle—I can make out a wheel with its hub perfectly centered; I can even make out a fender that follows the shape of the wheel. I should point out that if it were a vehicle, it would likely be seen from the rear, and you can even see the bumper.



Back then, the Gaz-69s were capable of off-road driving in extreme conditions—and they weren’t the only vehicles capable of that—but it’s the one that comes to mind as fitting for that period in 1959.





In any case, this interpretation makes more sense than some others that seem a little too far-fetched to me !

[GlennM]

This horse has been whipped numerous times. The case files show specks highly magnified and greatly exaggerated from obviously ruined film. It is interesting that the case files do not associate a full roll of photos with Zolos camera, instead we get a curated selection of the damaged film roll.

That the film was named Zolotov appears to confirm it was taken from his belongings in the tent or from his body in the stream.

A fair question to ask is why the other photos developed from the other cameras were so much better quality.

[Topaze]

Hi GlennM

Zolotaryov didn’t have his own camera and he used Thibeaux-Brignolle’s. In any case, there’s no proof these photos came from his camera; they were presented at a symposium in 2015 and hadn’t appeared before then. The poor quality, however, could be due to the film having been submerged in water for several months.
Of all the photos attributed to this roll of film, this is the only one that caught my attention; the others make no sense.

Night photos?

The Zorki and FED cameras used didn’t allow for exposure times longer than 1 second anyway, and without a sufficiently long exposure, any moving light source produces trails that are more or less distinct (or pronounced) depending on the speed of movement (and/or deceleration) of the moving subject.

Another thing: due to the focal lengths of the 20- and 22-mm lenses, it was impossible to explicitly photograph an object in the sky.

[GlennM]

Topaz,  congratukations on your investigations. Like many others, you are pointing to a suggestion of outside jnterference with the hikers. Pareidolia is a measure of how imaginative an intelligent mind is. Use it wisely, we may yet have a break through.

[Topaze]

I said something wrong about exposure times, so let me correct myself: The longer the exposure time, the more pronounced the light trails will be. In any case, to take proper long-exposure photos, you need a tripod (and possibly a cable release)! Another option is the flash, but if the cameras are indeed the ones shown in the photos on the website:




Source : https://dyatlovpass.com/cameras

None of them have a flash sync terminal (it started with the 1955 Zorki S, they were equipped with one):



In any case, it doesn’t matter at all because a flash only reaches a few meters at most.

Yes, I’m familiar with the phenomenon of pareidolia—it’s like a real-life Rorschach test. As for the photo I pointed out, it’s certainly my own interpretation—we agree on that—but I still find it surprising that random smudges would form unnatural angles and even form a perfect circle with a black object perfectly centered in the middle (which I interpreted as a wheel and its hub), as well as various proportions and details reminiscent of a vehicle viewed from the rear.

Furthermore, unlike the random blots in the other photos, it seems that the subject is roughly centered and isn’t just a tiny “thing” on the edge of the perforations.

Note: I didn’t see any mention of a flash in the official inventories, and if they’d had flashes, we would undoubtedly have seen photos taken inside the tent during the previous nights’ camps.

For those interested in camera equipment:

https://sovietcameras.org/zorki/
https://sovietcameras.org/fed-cameras/

ℹ️

I’m pointing these details out to clearly show that the cameras they had had no chance of taking decent photos at night, so the fact that Zolotaryov had one hanging around his neck when he left the tent suggests that they left the tent before nightfall! It’s a small detail, but it’s important because it’s the only piece of temporal evidence we can deduce from this (chronology).

You wouldn't keep a camera hanging around your neck when you're getting ready to sleep or to rest in your tent, would you?

And the fact that flashlights were found along their path also proves that they planned to return during the night!

[Ziljoe]

I said something wrong about exposure times, so let me correct myself: The longer the exposure time, the more pronounced the light trails will be. In any case, to take proper long-exposure photos, you need a tripod (and possibly a cable release)! Another option is the flash, but if the cameras are indeed the ones shown in the photos on the website:




Source : https://dyatlovpass.com/cameras

None of them have a flash sync terminal (it started with the 1955 Zorki S, they were equipped with one):



In any case, it doesn’t matter at all because a flash only reaches a few meters at most.

Yes, I’m familiar with the phenomenon of pareidolia—it’s like a real-life Rorschach test. As for the photo I pointed out, it’s certainly my own interpretation—we agree on that—but I still find it surprising that random smudges would form unnatural angles and even form a perfect circle with a black object perfectly centered in the middle (which I interpreted as a wheel and its hub), as well as various proportions and details reminiscent of a vehicle viewed from the rear.

Furthermore, unlike the random blots in the other photos, it seems that the subject is roughly centered and isn’t just a tiny “thing” on the edge of the perforations.

Note: I didn’t see any mention of a flash in the official inventories, and if they’d had flashes, we would undoubtedly have seen photos taken inside the tent during the previous nights’ camps.

For those interested in camera equipment:

https://sovietcameras.org/zorki/
https://sovietcameras.org/fed-cameras/

ℹ️

I’m pointing these details out to clearly show that the cameras they had had no chance of taking decent photos at night, so the fact that Zolotaryov had one hanging around his neck when he left the tent suggests that they left the tent before nightfall! It’s a small detail, but it’s important because it’s the only piece of temporal evidence we can deduce from this (chronology).

You wouldn't keep a camera hanging around your neck when you're getting ready to sleep or to rest in your tent, would you?

And the fact that flashlights were found along their path also proves that they planned to return during the night!

This is my understanding.

1) We don’t actually have evidence that the 2015 images came from Zolotaryov’s camera. 
They weren’t circulated during the investigation, and they aren’t tied to any specific camera in the case files. If they were in the archive, they were likely ignored because there’s nothing meaningful visible in them.

2) There’s no mention in the case files of Zolotaryov being found with a camera or a camera case. 
There is a photo where something around his neck looks like a case, but it isn’t listed among his belongings and wasn’t recorded as being found on him.

 3) Having a camera case around your neck inside the tent isn’t unusual. 
People were cooking, repairing gear, changing socks, sorting equipment. Someone handling their camera while others were doing their own tasks is normal tent behaviour. 
 It doesn’t tell us anything about the time of day.

4) Only one flashlight was found on the slope. 
The “beacon” idea has been discussed for years, but it doesn’t provide a timeline either.The other flashlight on the tent
 
So at the moment, the camera case and the damaged film don’t give us any chronological clues about when they left the tent.

[Topaze]

2) There’s no mention in the case files of Zolotaryov being found with a camera or a camera case.

What da ya think it could be around his neck ?  A Geiger counter ? For chronology I based my assumptions on rational behavior : you wouldn't take a camera that can't take nighttime photos when going out at night, would you ? However, it's true that we are not dealing with rational behavior in this case.

it isn’t listed among his belongings

For sure it isn't his own camera, he has no camera on his own, but he used Tibo's one. However there's a mysterious unkown camera among the official inventory too. And many mysteries about the film rolls too !

[Ziljoe]

2) There’s no mention in the case files of Zolotaryov being found with a camera or a camera case.

What da ya think it could be around his neck ?  A Geiger counter ? For chronology I based my assumptions on rational behavior : you wouldn't take a camera that can't take nighttime photos when going out at night, would you ? However, it's true that we are not dealing with rational behavior in this case.

it isn’t listed among his belongings

For sure it isn't his own camera, he has no camera on his own, but he used Tibo's one. However there's a mysterious unkown camera among the official inventory too. And many mysteries about the film rolls too !

Here's my full quote Topaze. Not your edited version.

2) There’s no mention in the case files of Zolotaryov being found with a camera or a camera case.
There is a photo where something around his neck looks like a case, but it isn’t listed among his belongings and wasn’t recorded as being found on him.

It is rational behaviour to administrate a camera , change socks , eat food, clean items in a tent . To leave a tent in an emergency, it is not necessary to remove a camera case from around ones neck. It may have been in a pocket , it may not be a camera or camera case at all.

If it was of value at the time of finding the bodies , I would suspect it would have been removed instantly.

A camera was returned to Zolotaryov's mother.

[Topaze]

The same side reinforcement on the leather case !

But you certainly shoud be right, it's just an 50's pastie with Photoshop !

To leave a tent in an emergency, it is not necessary to remove a camera case from around ones neck

So you keep your camera around your neck even inside the tent—while eating, setting up the tent stakes, and so on... ??? That's what I understood. When I used to go camping, I'd put my camera away before going about my occupations, only taking it out when I needed it.

[Ziljoe]

So you keep your camera around your neck even inside the tent—while eating, setting up the tent stakes, and so on... ??? That's what I understood. When I used to go camping, I'd put my camera away before going about my occupations, only taking it out when I needed it.

To expand. If the incident happened whilst the hikers were in the tent, drugs, UFO, wolverine etc. it would not be out of the realms of possibility for people to be doing different tasks. Zolo could have been drying his camera , changing the film etc. others could have been changing socks, eating, looking at the maps , discussing the evening paper. It's not an all or nothing situation. So you have put your camera away , but at some point you had to put it away.

It doesn't lead us to a time of day for when the incident occurred. The stove for example might be yet to be installed or it had been used over night but dismantled. Both options are possible. There little that we can conclude .