What Ivanov brings together here, I think it is worth accepting with doubt!
The fact that it determines from the film sensitivity, the brightness of the lens, and the exposure time at what time the picture was taken! Wow! Ivanov could only read this from a Aghata Christie's novel ! This is nonsens!
When mounted, all cameras were single and set equally. Is it the same lens, is it the same exposure time?
Or are the camera settings and lenses different and does Ivanov know which camera the picture was taken with?
Ivanov knows how photosensitive film-negative this image was recorded!
Ivanov knows that the two pictures come from different cameras.
I remember that there was an incident: when the cameras are found, one of the cameras is taken by a searcher and when it turns out, he has to return it, along with the film and photos.
Ivanov hands over the film negatives to the searchers for develop. (with this Ivanov commits a crime)
The two images in question do not appear on any known negatives.
In summary: You can see that something is wrong with the pictures! There is a problem with these two pictures in particular! Ivanov fantastically determines what time the picture was taken; Ivanov hands over film negatives to civilians; known images and negatives are different.
My assumption is that the tent was found earlier. The films in the cameras were developed and censored. After the censorship, the indifferent and harmless images were copied back to new film negatives using a photographic process and put back into the cameras. This is how they will be found on February 26.
Ivanov hands over the film negatives to the searchers for develop because he is covering up their fraud. If the searchers call up the pictures, no one will be able to accuse the authorities of making the pictures disappear, right? Otherwise, handing over evidence to civilians would be a crime! Especially in the case of film negatives, there is a risk that they could be destroyed during development, and then the images on them, which could even show the solution to the case, will be lost forever! A prosecutor couldn't risk that! But in fact, he doesn't risk anything, because they already have all the pictures, more than what is on the censored negatives, which the search engines will call up. The two pictures of the dig were censored pictures! Why? Because it refers to the location of the tent! At the time when the film exchange was made, there was no final version of how the authorities would falsify the events. It wasn't yet certain that they would want the tent to be on the mountainside.
There is still the possibility that these images were taken at a different time. Even if they were in the camera from before on the film reel. Thus, these were not the last pictures on the film negative sheet, but could have been somewhere in front. Although a good argument against this is what @Osi said, that no one came forward, that these pictures were taken at a different time and elsewhere, which tour he took! My answer to this is that the person does not know the picture from before, because it was only developed now, on the other hand, he cannot claim that I am there in the picture, because only Krivonischenko can be recognized. But I admit that @Osi's argument on this is pretty strong!
When it was decided what the final official narrative would be for the case, i.e. that the tent would be on the mountainside, the pictures were used to prove it. And they didn't care about the contradiction that these images are not on the negatives developed by the search engines!
The most suspicious thing is that Ivanov gives evidence to civilians!
Topic: 2 Chinese lanterns (Read 4432 times)
