Photographs

[Nigel Evans]

It's just occurred to me, if YuriK placed himself at the end of the tent (furthest from the entrance) he could use the gap in the tent normally used by the stove chimney as a viewing portal. The orientation of the tent probably sheltering the same from the wind and the snow. Then he would have a grand view of the slope down to the valley....

So this could explain why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind? Not normal procedure?

Also the "three heads/shrubs" might be tent fabric at the base of the "chimney hole", the intense light penetrating the weave.

[Marley]

Aha
I just experienced the biggest aha-erlebnis in the universe. Thanks to @Hennning’s post I know what the “shrubheads” are!!! At least, I think I do. (Try to show some modesty here, Marley )
And no, I never wanted to suggest that the shrubs in the contemporary photo are the same as the (alleged) ones in the “three shrubs” photograph. I’m a bit shocked that my post can be read that way.  Henning, I assure you, that thought never, ever crossed my mind. 

As for your proposition that the “Three heads/shrubs” photograph is a cut-out & blow-up of Frame no. 34 I think you may be right. I actually believe you are totally right. And I found something while doing my research on Frame no. 34 that very much supports your theory.

Multiple images
There are at least three images of Frame no. 34 circulating on the interwebs. Sorry, internet. There’s the no frills version I used when writing about it. There’s a version with a big scratch, or hair on it and there’s also an image with the shrubs, heads, thingies at the bottom.

Negatives
We also have a photograph of the negatives:
https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Dyatlov-pass-film1.jpg

Enlarged:


It’s a 35 mm film. That means that a frame is 8 sprocket holes (the holes on the edge of the film) wide. The red line (my addition) marks the frame’s edge. The black sharpie lines are an upside down “31 dash” someone wrote on the sleeve. It’s not part of picture.

Where are the shrubheads?
As you can see there is nothing in the southeast (bottom right hand) corner. Yeah, I know. It’s a photo of a negative inside a sleeve so it’s not a high quality image, to put it mildly. But it does look quite empty there, doesn’t it? And that’s the place where the shrubheads are supposed to be. If you accept the premise that the “Three (shrub)heads” photograph is an enlargement of Frame no. 34.

Another image
Here are some other versions of Frame no. 34. https://dyatlovpass.com/frame-34. I have no idea who made these and how. But there’s something very interesting about the image presented as the negative of Frame no. 34.



 

Below the… hair I think it is, you can suddenly see these three “thingies”. Our shrubheads. So where did the hair come from, and the shrubbies?

Sprocket holes
I don’t know who’s hair it is but those thingies are sprocket holes. When I realized that it was my big aha moment. This is not a digital version of a negative. It’s a sloppy photograph of a bit of film, showing the top of some sprocket holes. Once you see it, it can’t be unseen. These are sprocket holes people!
 

 


I totally rely on you @Henning to get the details right. That’s your expertise. I very much look forward to your analysis.

[time2fly]

Sprocket holes
I don’t know who’s hair it is but those thingies are sprocket holes. When I realized that it was my big aha moment. This is not a digital version of a negative. It’s a sloppy photograph of a bit of film, showing the top of some sprocket holes. Once you see it, it can’t be unseen. These are sprocket holes people!

I totally rely on you @Henning to get the details right. That’s your expertise. I very much look forward to your analysis.

First of all, thank you for your kind words.

Excellent observation, however I have 3 objections:
1. The 3 blobs or fingers are round, while the film transportation holes are square.
2. They're all on a close to perfect horizontal line. So where are the other ones that should be to the left of them?
3. When a negative is developed and enlarged, these holes are never part of the image. It would have been a very improper development method, or with very bad equipment. Not really plausible in a foresic investigation.

So until we find a better explanation, I would vote for fingerprints or fingers of the lab technician. If we get a little more thechnical, they could be projections of the holes on the frame behind, when the film was still rolled up in the camera. Being the last frame, it would make sense that only half of it was touching the film roll behind it.

[Marley]

3. When a negative is developed and enlarged, these holes are never part of the image. It would have been a very improper development method, or with very bad equipment. Not really plausible in a foresic investigation.

Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?

[time2fly]

Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?

Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. If I insulted you in any way, accept my apology.

What I was saying was, that I never saw any photo where theses negative holes were part of the developed photo. When a negative is projected onto photo paper in the dark room, the frame is in a perfect fit inside the tray of the projector, similar to a slide projector. Otherwise the photo would turn out blurred at the edges. I don't know of any projectors that would make this kind of mistake.

[Marley]

Yeah, duh. That's the point, right? This isn't CSI. We're talking random pictures here. You know that. Right?

Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. If I insulted you in any way, accept my apology.

What I was saying was, that I never saw any photo where theses negative holes were part of the developed photo. When a negative is projected onto photo paper in the dark room, the frame is in a perfect fit inside the tray of the projector, similar to a slide projector. Otherwise the photo would turn out blurred at the edges. I don't know of any projectors that would make this kind of mistake.

You didn't insult me. And I apologize for leaving that impression. We're good. As far as I'm concerned.
It turns out I'm no good at explaining my thoughts. But this is what I think:

. You have a strip of old skool negatives;
. You take a camera (new skool, digital) and make pictures of the frames;
. You present the digital photos of the negatives as the real thing;
. Turn them from a negative into a positive;
. But they are not prints;
. They are photos of a filmstrip;
. And if you take a photo of a filmstrip you might catch a sprocket hole here and there as well.

That makes sense, right?

[time2fly]

. You have a strip of old skool negatives;
. You take a camera (new skool, digital) and make pictures of the frames;
. You present the digital photos of the negatives as the real thing;
. Turn them from a negative into a positive;
. But they are not prints;
. They are photos of a filmstrip;
. And if you take a photo of a filmstrip you might catch a sprocket hole here and there as well.

That makes sense, right?

Yeah, makes sense. But that's not how it works. To make a photo from a negative film strip, you need a light source behind the strip, otherwise you will only get a mushed dark blob, which will not convert into a positive image, no matter what software you use. I converted all my old negatives and slides once, using a slide scanner. There is no other way. So I doubt your scenario somewhat. It would also not explain why there are not more "bushes", and why they are round instead of square in the first place.

[Nigel Evans]

I'm rooting for the chimney hole theory!
 

[mk]

Interesting!  I follow your explanation, I think, so far as it goes.  Does this mean you suspect someone intentionally made a blow-up print of that particular part of the negative?  Or is there another reason the frame might be cut?

In my opinion: Reducing the amount of information in a photo (cutting, zooming) can only have one reason: to create a confirmation bias, i.e. to influence a certain opinion. Valentin Yakimenko, who allegedly created the Zolotaryov album, was very much into the "fallen angel/higher level demonic involvement" theory. So he found some scratches, ice crystals and dust particles and enhanced them to the size of spaceships and daemons. Why he chose to sneak in frame 34 from Krivonischenko's camera...? Obviously to underscrore his point.

If you don't follow this psycho-religious stuff, you can basically ignore the whole collection, except two. The only frames that seem original are the two "eagle" frames showing a light blob. If someone can find the original, unaltered frames from Zolotaryov's camera, I would be quite happy. I have not been able to find them.

Thanks for responding--makes perfect sense to me.

[mk]

I'm rooting for the chimney hole theory!
 

Haha! Me too.  There's something rather artistically satisfying about not setting up the stove and then using the chimney hole for the tripod camera. It sounds like something a clever, corny, mischievous college guy would think of doing.

[Nigel Evans]

I hereby rename the photo as the "three curls". 


More seriously they really do seem to have erected the tent the wrong way round? Surely the entrance facing east sheltered from the wind and down the slope would have been considerably more comfortable? But they reversed it to create a protected viewing platform?


Another thought is that we know they didn't set off that day until 3pm? They had a sleep in to prepare for staying up late? Maybe all night?

[MDGross]

Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.

Hi there, no i'd suggest that the plan was to observe and photograph some lights that looked innocent and harmless 1 or 2km away. But the blizzard that they clearly photographed as they ascended and pitched their tent was turning up the "electrical volume" like a horizontal thundercloud -  https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/thunder-and-lightning/what-causes-thunder-lightning, and that night they experienced electrical phenomenon at a scale far beyond what they had observed on previous nights.
That or a military exercise with a mystery clean up that left no trace and ignored several bodies of course.

Whatever i think an excellent case can be made for them electing to be there in that spot to observe and photograph something :-

• They clearly changed the route and the plan the night before (decided to build the labaz).
• Igor records some misgivings in the diary about being on the ridge.
• They leave very late in the day strongly suggesting the plan was not to cover distance but to just make that ascent.
• They pitch the tent in a strange orientation. 180 degrees from what would be the obvious one?
• They put a camera on a tripod in a crowded tent.
• The casefiles suggest Semyon was outside with his camera when the event happened (think about that, at night in a snowstorm and he's wearing a camera around his neck??)

[sarapuk]

I'm loving it! Marley's expert post is describing my belief that these photos are genuine. My favourite theory is that they deliberately elected to pitch the tent at that location to photograph these lights (which they had already observed on previous nights) with Igor recording his doubts in the group diary the night before. If so then this rules out military ordnance of course. If you then also rule out YuriK's peculiar third degree burns resulting from a modest campfire then you're left with........ electricity.

What  !  ?  They risked their lives to photograph Electricity.

What you do not do after ascending 1000ft up a mountain on skis in a raging blizzard carrying a heavy backpack and clearing a metre of snow to pitch your tent  with an apex 1metre high and then sharing it with 8 other individuals who are climbing over you to get outside for night time toilet trips is......... setup a camera on a tripod for no purpose.

 setup a camera on a tripod for no purpose  !  ? 

[sarapuk]

Nigel, Your speculation takes all the spontaneity out of the ball lightning occurrence. If they planned for it to happen, why exit the tent? It was the shock and fear of the unknown that frightened them: a sudden explosion, fireballs rolling down the slope. Yuri K. only had time to shoot one photo.

Hi there, no i'd suggest that the plan was to observe and photograph some lights that looked innocent and harmless 1 or 2km away. But the blizzard that they clearly photographed as they ascended and pitched their tent was turning up the "electrical volume" like a horizontal thundercloud -  https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/thunder-and-lightning/what-causes-thunder-lightning, and that night they experienced electrical phenomenon at a scale far beyond what they had observed on previous nights.
That or a military exercise with a mystery clean up that left no trace and ignored several bodies of course.

Whatever i think an excellent case can be made for them electing to be there in that spot to observe and photograph something :-

• They clearly changed the route and the plan the night before (decided to build the labaz).
• Igor records some misgivings in the diary about being on the ridge.
• They leave very late in the day strongly suggesting the plan was not to cover distance but to just make that ascent.
• They pitch the tent in a strange orientation. 180 degrees from what would be the obvious one?
• They put a camera on a tripod in a crowded tent.
• The casefiles suggest Semyon was outside with his camera when the event happened (think about that, at night in a snowstorm and he's wearing a camera around his neck??)

So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ? 

[Star man]

Marley - A brilliant piece of technical and deductive reasoning.  Well done.     Based on your analysis, Krivo would have needed some time to set up his camera on the tripod correct?  This would imply that either:
1.  He knew there was going to be something worth taking a photo of?
Or
2.  There was more going on (in the sky?) Prior to frame 34 that prompted him to set up the camera and allow sufficient time to do this before he shot frame 34?

Given that he only had three shots left on the film, my thoughts tend to toward point 2, but could be wrong.  If he had expected some kind of show, would you not ensure you have plenty of shots available?  What are your thoughts on this?

Refresh my memory, but wasn't the camera and tripod found in the tent? 

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ?

I can't give it to the nearest minute. 


Maybe it was decided before they started? These are university people, they'll be aware of mansi culture and legends, pilots reporting strange lights in this region. Semyon's boast that he would return from this trip "famous" fits with this narrative.

[eurocentric]

It won't be the tops of sprocket holes peeping through. The 'heads' feature is coincidentally in line with some of them, but is just about visible above the tops of the sprocket holes on the image of the sleeved negative, as semi-transparent blobs (which then print black).

The image detail actually descends lower than what are being taken to be sprocket holes, but the negative doesn't show that. That can happen with negatives, if the take-up spool tensioning is wonky, but doesn't apply here. Also we should see the tops of the rest of the sprocket holes, even if they gradually reduced through a misaligned negative.

Colourised version:


The vegetation theory would certainly answer the anomaly of why the 'heads' are broadly all the same height when the hikers were not. But photo's of the mountain peak in summer reveal light vegetation of ground cover grass and taller wild flower annuals, there's not much evidence of clumps of hardy perennials which can overwinter. The photo of snowbound grassy hillocks on the Dyatlov Pass may have been taken at a much lower elevation.

Looking up from the tent site:


I doubt it's fingerpints either, not unless a newborn baby handled the film, not only with tiny tips, but fingers so close together they spanned only part of a 35mm frame.

I will offer another theory, which could well be wrong. Because the 'heads' are in line with the sprocket holes and this only affects the final exposure, near the end of the film, it may be film loading damage.

The film end is slid into the developing tank reel, through slots at the sides, until the film sprocket holes begin to engage with two teeth inside. One side of the reel is then twisted, rotating in the middle, and a ratchet system draws the film into the centre of the reel as a spiral. All of this has to be done in total darkness, or with the film cassette and developing tank inside a lightproof changing bag. It's very tricky, and sometimes requires several attempts, something made worse if any of the equipment is worn.

If the reel rubbed near the sprocket holes while repeatedly trying to engage, or the film is twisted, cross-threaded between opposing teeth, it potentially could wear off the film emulsion near the sprocket holes. That then translates into a near transparent negative area, which images black on a positive (print).

But I could be wrong, and it was a set of little grey men who immediately rushed the cameraman.

[eurocentric]

Excellent discovery, but one which, as ever with the DPI, throws up many more questions.

While the lower part of the image, the 3 (or is it 5) 'heads' appears to be the same, down to a scratch here and there, the neatly-edged lens flare in the centre of the fuller image would appear to have been replaced with the blinding white-out from elsewhere, and the position of that light, relative to the heads/plants, is now much closer to them. Look at the gap between the heads and the leading edge of the light across both photo's.

No. The extracted section of frame 34 has been further brightened with Gamma. Eventually, this will cause lighter partes of the image to become white. Valentin Yakimenko probably did this to add drama to the thus altered image. Remember he was trying to explain (in his personal mindset!) what killed his comrades. His angel (or UFO, helicopter, whatever you want to see) frames are subjective interpretations, similar to a religious person who sees the face of Jesus in a toast.

My own enhanced version of Frame 34 concerned itself with the shape of the light source, not the heads. The light in the middle is as Marley suggests, a lens flare. The source of light is broadly similar in shape and angle to that of Semyon's two 'eagle' images, a snowflake on the lens likely the eagle shape.

I fully agree that the "eagles" are melting snow flakes or ice crystals. This in my opinion proves the authenticity of the frames, and that they actually show a real light ball in the sky, and not a light source in the lab. The lens flare usually only happens from a very bright light, like the sun. It would not appear from a lamp in the lab.

Increasing brightness to that degree, to expand a lens flare until in near engulfs the image, would also bleach out the scratches and even the heads, as in this quick example:



It could be done, by selectively editing a highlighted part of the image and leaving the margin untouched, but what a fraud if so.

It probably is the same image, but on the other hand if two cameramen were stood next to one another photographing the same scene the foregound would be broadly the same in each image and the different intensity of the light source explained by the momentary difference in the timing of the exposures. To prove things we need to see Semyon's strip of negatives.

If the two images were then scanned using the same scanner/negative carrier, and it had scratches to the glass, that could operate like a watermark transferring to both low-resolution image margins.

Unfortunately I don't have access to any original images.

[eurocentric]

double posted

[sarapuk]

So at what point during the expedition did they see these so called lights and decide to go up the mountain to photograph them  !  ?

I can't give it to the nearest minute. 


Maybe it was decided before they started? These are university people, they'll be aware of mansi culture and legends, pilots reporting strange lights in this region. Semyon's boast that he would return from this trip "famous" fits with this narrative.

Well no one can give it to the nearest minute. But if we are supposed to believe that they deliberately went up the Mountain to set up the Tent and photo lights in the Sky there must have been a point lower down the slopes where they decided to do that. But the Sky is big, surely they wouldnt have needed to go as far as they did if it was just a question of taking photos.

[Nigel Evans]

With 1959 camera technology getting close might help a lot.

[MDGross]

If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.

[Star man]

If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

Regards

Star man

Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

[Nigel Evans]

If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.

A reasonable point but this is the Soviet Union in 1959. All travel requires permission and to deviate the route from a filed plan even by a mile could raise suspicions perhaps with undesired consequences (trip cancelled?). Also Igor was attempting to qualify as a master of sports so stunts like this could be prejudicial. Much better perhaps to keep it quiet and if they get some photographic evidence of scientific importance that this would excuse the infringement. If they don't no one has to know.

[mk]

If the group had seen lights in the sky before the night of Feb. 1, wouldn't it be mentioned in the group diary? It would have been a significant sighting. If the group had heard of lights in the sky before the hike began, wouldn't that also have been mentioned in one of the diaries? Their expedition would have potential scientific importance and generated excitement within the group. But no one writes about it.

A reasonable point but this is the Soviet Union in 1959. All travel requires permission and to deviate the route from a filed plan even by a mile could raise suspicions perhaps with undesired consequences (trip cancelled?). Also Igor was attempting to qualify as a master of sports so stunts like this could be prejudicial. Much better perhaps to keep it quiet and if they get some photographic evidence of scientific importance that this would excuse the infringement. If they don't no one has to know.

I would love to know how Igor settled on this particular route.  The one that he initially intended, I mean.  Was it a standard route that had been done before?  Was it an area he knew?  Was there input from the other hikers?  Not implying that there's any clue within his choice; I'm just curious.

[Star man]

If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

Regards

Star man

Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

If Krivo was planning a photo shoot, why would he not put a new film in his camera?

Regards

Star man

Or equally why not finish of the roll and then change it?

Just thinking that it was dark, cold and changing the film might take some time.  A full film means less chance of missing a shot you might want.  Its possible he just wanted to use his film up, but if you knew there was going to be something worth taking photographs of, and you specifically chose your camp site to take them, I would want a full film roll ready.

Regards

Star man

Well clearly he didn't and it's not important? I'd much rather be discussing why the tent was pitched with the entrance facing into the wind. Imo that's a smoking gun.

[MDGross]

It is strange to pitch the tent with the entrance facing the wind. Perhaps it was thought that when you step outside to relieve yourself, it's better to step on an up slope. Should you slip and fall, you'd fall back through the entrance into the tent. If the entrance faced the other direction and you slipped, you'd slide or roll down the slope. Just a thought...