Dear Mr WAB sir!
Well i think i'm on the side of Mr Koshkin, that object seems to be glowing with more than moonlight and if so you would expect it to be hot and heating the surrounding air with the water vapour contained within condensing at the object's thermal boundary and drifting away as steam.
1. You have the right to be on either side, as well as the right to be very wrong.
2. You should not add your fantasies to what was not there. Like something "hot" and "air heating". Nights in the North Urals, even in August, have very low temperatures, sometimes even negative (Celsius). What exactly was the fact of that night.
3. The fact that it is the moonlight and shortcomings of the simplest digital cameras is an undeniable fact obtained from the first source (Valentin Yakimenko). Therefore, there is no need to twist many tall tales around it. This distracts readers from the truth very much.
4. You, together with the Koshkin, can fantasize lot, but it is irrational activity.
Although he should have reported Yakimenko's observation to maintain balance.
Then it would be someone else...
On a separate question. Keith McCloskey's book "Journey to Dyatlov Pass" states that the film strip marked "Zolotaryov" has a "Plane3" photo. Two questions :-
I don't think Mr. Keith McCloskey's statement is authoritative.
1. It's a retelling of what they talked to Kuntsevich about what Valentin Yakimenko said, which is no longer original in the study.
2. Keith McCloskey himself analyzed this image on film directly...
3. The inscription "Zolotarev" cannot speak about anything, because it is not clear who (presumably it was Ivanov) and why this inscription was made. This is nothing more than an abstract assumption, considering that on the film the images Zolotarev could have made with very little probability. There are many images of the UPI University summit in November 1958. If there's one thing I'm not confused about because I don't have any tapes in front of me right now...
- Do you know about a Plane3 photo?
This is what Valentin Yakimenko spoke abstractly about in 2013, and what he was much objected to by other people who know photography on film. This is not an image of an airplane. It is a very small fragment of a dried-up sodium sulfite crystal (part of the developer). Its size compared to the window of perforation of 135 type film is very small (about 40...50 times smaller), with the size of the "window" about 1.5 x 3.5 millimeters (0.059 x 0.139 in).
Modern technologies make it possible make any magnifications by digital methods, but "chemical photography" does not allow obtain images of objects in this size on film with such sharp edges at these sizes of parts.
I have not yet been able to convince Valentin Yakimenko that this statement is wrong, but many qualified experts in "chemical photography" confirm my opinion.
- Do you know if the negatives of this strip are available to be shared, online etc?
Please provide me direct link to this original negative. Not the image that Valentin Yakimenko himself gave as secondary image, and namely the original negative. It is better if it is with dimensions (in millimeters or inches - it will not be so important).
If you do it honestly, it will be very clear to other readers.
I have worked with original negatives in person (in my hands before my eyes). So I can talk about it for sure.
- I think that the Plane2 photo is highly significant to the fireorb theory but inspection of the negative is important.
Then why don't we do this test first, and then draw conclusions?