December 04, 2020, 12:58:25 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Semyon's Final Photo's enhanced and colourised/colorized  (Read 1146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 30, 2020, 05:28:15 PM
Read 1146 times
Offline

eurocentric


I've enhanced, colourised, cropped and enlarged the frames for analysis. The online software used places enhancement/colourising icons on the photo's (unless I've cropped them away):


1. "Three Heads"



2. "Woven Mesh"



3. "Lynx"



4. "Horn"



5. "Jaws"



6. "Mushroom with a face"



7. "Eagle 1 Light"



8. "Eagle 2 Light"



9. "Chicken"



10. "Plane 1"



11. "Plane 2"



Full frame



Full frame



Full frame





I've added this topic here because my own subjective assessment of what I may be looking at is a (military) helicopter...

1. Three Heads - this is 4 or 5 heads, silhouetted in the foreground with a bright light source flooding out the exposure. Possibly a search light's beam, or a flare.

2. Woven Mesh - most likely film emulsion damage, the effect of the film sticking together and being peeled away.

3. Lynx - ditto.

4. Horn - no idea, it's very angular to be film damage. It's more Ural Snowy Owl flushed out of its (night) time sleep than horn. Possibly the same object as in Image 5, seen from a different rotational position, and overexposed.

5. Jaws - at first I thought this was a parachute unfurling, now I wonder if it's an item of clothing, such as a hat, blown upwards by the wind (or a downdraft).

6. Mushroom with a face - if I squint I wonder if it's a man/line of men carrying a torch or flare, the light source zig-zagging about as he/they move. How small it is on the exposure would suggest they were some distance away if so.

7. Eagle 1 light - the clearest photo, and quite obviously a bright lamp of some kind, with a particular shape including squared-off edges. I think this may be a helicopter search light, seen at an angle. The smearing down the lens is probably a snowflake, the camera pointed skyward.

I've looked up Soviet helicopters of that era and the twin rotor Yakovlev Yak-24 appears to have a reflector edge which may create that type of angularity. Also it's a question of how the edge of the bodywork the light is recessed into looks when viewed from an angle, and how that might affect the apparent shape of the light.

8. Eagle 2 light - the same again, only blurry.

9. Chicken - this appears to be showing crystalised crud on the negative, not a print, see full frame below.

10. Plane 1 - this is either another windblown item, or it's a helicopter, out of focus. I don't think it's a plane.

11. Plane 2 - again, I doubt this is a plane, the Soviets didn't have a swept-back wing design until later MiGs, and Semyon would not have been able to photograph more than a blur at this altitude and speed, so a more static helicopter fits the bill.

The Yakovlev Yak-24 had high canopy windows, the same body shape beneath the cockpit windows, a taller rotor stack as a 'tail', the pointed bit on top of that possibly a rotor axle, the shorter front rotor stack behind the cockpit canopy, and the angled tail fins which have a vertical plate at the end, and that round black feature behind the canopy might correspond to the round (radar dome?) on the Yakovlev Yak-24. This exposure would require a light source underneath.

I'm not entering here into what complex involvement the military may or may not have had with the hikers, but it seems likely to me from Semyon's photo's, from his mystery camera, that there was at least some contact, that the military knew they were there and had checked them out from the air in the same way a police helicopter might today.

It may be that they were looking for someone else, and if so would probably return to the area later in daylight and would then see 3 of the hikers laid out on the pass, land, turn them over to check, and that then explains the bodies being moved, the subsequent snow then covering all tracks, and the bodies.

The search lights may even explain the numerous witness sightings of orange orbs, if the effect of the night/distance/weather conspired to change the perceived colour.


Yakovlev Yak-24


Helicopter search lights during rescue mission (colourised)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 12:45:52 AM by eurocentric »

July 31, 2020, 02:49:12 PM
Reply #1
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Interesting, but its still difficult to say what we are looking at exactly. We could imagine all sorts of things by looking at them. It could be a combination of film damage and actual photos of something. How can we tell for sure  !  ? 
DB

July 31, 2020, 03:26:56 PM
Reply #2
Offline

eurocentric


The film would still be processable, immersion in cold pure water for several months won't erase the images. Cameras have been dropped in lakes, and even salt water, and the film is still recoverable.

If light gets in the same way the water does to re-expose the film that's a different matter. The danger comes from handling the film, because it may have stuck together, and loading it into a reel for a developing tank, though there are no fingerprints.

I used to do B&W and colour film processing, some of the images on these exposures, such as a clearly defined lamp and the 'plane' are not caused by any damage I've ever seen to film. The contours and the 3D flap edge on 'Jaws' the same. They are exposures, within the limit of night photography where a prolonged exposure has not been used to catch all available light, on subjects which would need to remain still to avoid blurring if it was.

It's just a question of what they are, and also, since we don't know for sure Semyon took these on the fateful night, when and where they were taken. He could have previously taken these photo's and brought this other camera along to use up the rest of the exposures, but never did.

August 01, 2020, 02:39:54 AM
Reply #3
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Some of the images are highly magnified parts of a frame so that needs to be taking into account.  Some of the images such as plane 1 and 2 kind of look like photos of tears and holes taken from inside the tent with light from outside coming through the holes.  Don't know why anyone would want an album of tent holes though.

Regards

Star man

August 01, 2020, 06:23:18 AM
Reply #4
Offline

eurocentric


Tha Yak-24 front lamp is mounted at broadly the same angle, and is the same shape, as the lamp in Semyon's photo:




Some models had vertical stabilser plates on the tail fins, and potentially this could lend the helicopter a 'bi-planey' look from some angles, the available light not picking out all features, as in Semyon's blurry 'Plane 1" photo:








August 02, 2020, 11:33:27 PM
Reply #5
Offline

sparrow


In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now.  If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything,  how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye?  If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.

August 03, 2020, 03:39:17 AM
Reply #6
Offline

eurocentric


In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now.  If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything,  how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye?  If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.

That will be a wild exaggeration if so, because 'blowing up' (enlarging) a negative to 1000 times magnification would show massive image grain, focussing down on the actual grain in the emulsion, and yet a lamp is as clear as that in one image.

If these were originally printed out, and not more recently digitally scanned, 1000x magnification would also require the enlarger head to be around 30ft above the photographic paper, needing very specialised equipment, a powerful bulb and long exposures in the darkroom.

We also know the scale of two of the images from the negative sprocket holes. While the rest of the original images do not show sprocket holes, they are still generally in 35mm format, so I see no reason to presume they are not the whole image.

August 03, 2020, 10:06:57 AM
Reply #7
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
The film would still be processable, immersion in cold pure water for several months won't erase the images. Cameras have been dropped in lakes, and even salt water, and the film is still recoverable.

If light gets in the same way the water does to re-expose the film that's a different matter. The danger comes from handling the film, because it may have stuck together, and loading it into a reel for a developing tank, though there are no fingerprints.

I used to do B&W and colour film processing, some of the images on these exposures, such as a clearly defined lamp and the 'plane' are not caused by any damage I've ever seen to film. The contours and the 3D flap edge on 'Jaws' the same. They are exposures, within the limit of night photography where a prolonged exposure has not been used to catch all available light, on subjects which would need to remain still to avoid blurring if it was.

It's just a question of what they are, and also, since we don't know for sure Semyon took these on the fateful night, when and where they were taken. He could have previously taken these photo's and brought this other camera along to use up the rest of the exposures, but never did.


Yes thats true and I have actually mentioned that elsewhere re water damage. I also did my own film processing in the 1960's. It could still be some form of damage. Its difficult to say.  Like so much of this Dyatlov Mystery. It could well be that one or more of the Group took photos of objects that played a part in their eventual demise.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 10:15:38 AM by sarapuk »
DB

August 03, 2020, 10:12:22 AM
Reply #8
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Some of the images are highly magnified parts of a frame so that needs to be taking into account.  Some of the images such as plane 1 and 2 kind of look like photos of tears and holes taken from inside the tent with light from outside coming through the holes.  Don't know why anyone would want an album of tent holes though.

Regards

Star man

Very interesting suggestion.  Could one of the Group have taken photos within the tent during some kind of Incident  ?  ! 
DB

August 03, 2020, 10:14:17 AM
Reply #9
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now.  If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything,  how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye?  If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.

Well maybe Keith McClosky is wrong.
DB

August 06, 2020, 01:09:12 AM
Reply #10
Offline

sparrow


Hello sarapuk and eurocentric.

I really don't know enough about developing pictures to have much of an opinion in this matter. But here I will quote from Keith McCloskey's book on page 99, first full paragraph.
"The next stage was for Yakimenko to examine the relevant clippings of the celestial phenomenon with the microscope at a much higher magnification of x1000."
And further down page 99...
"Again (as with his previous exercise of examining the film under x30 magnification), he identified scanner faults, micro particles and miniature scratches....When he began examining the object/s under x1000 magnification, he divided the clippings into four groups and these groupings were by similarity of object/s."

August 06, 2020, 03:12:05 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Ting




5. "Jaws"



5. Jaws - at first I thought this was a parachute unfurling, now I wonder if it's an item of clothing, such as a hat, blown upwards by the wind (or a downdraft).


Can anyone else see a dark human figure to the left and above the bright white area. Also, just above the mid part of the white area to the left hand side of a dark patch there is what looks like a dog's head -eyes, nose ear. It's more than likely just my brain trying to create patterns where there are none or not possible because of the scaling issues being discussed. Once you see it though it's hard to unsee it.

August 08, 2020, 04:16:33 AM
Reply #12
Offline

sparrow


If I look at it just right I can see what looks like the top half of a man with dark hair and wearing a jacket and tie.  I can not see a dog no matter how hard I try. But I believe if we look hard enough we could see other things too.

August 08, 2020, 09:21:09 AM
Reply #13
Offline

eurocentric


Hello sarapuk and eurocentric.

I really don't know enough about developing pictures to have much of an opinion in this matter. But here I will quote from Keith McCloskey's book on page 99, first full paragraph.
"The next stage was for Yakimenko to examine the relevant clippings of the celestial phenomenon with the microscope at a much higher magnification of x1000."
And further down page 99...
"Again (as with his previous exercise of examining the film under x30 magnification), he identified scanner faults, micro particles and miniature scratches....When he began examining the object/s under x1000 magnification, he divided the clippings into four groups and these groupings were by similarity of object/s."

Unless, for some bizarre reason, the "clippings" have been cropped to 35mm format, then the source material at this website appears to be the entire 35mm frames, and we know the image scale of the objects in 2 of them from the camera sprocket holes (which appear at the edges of negatives).

If they've been examining imperfections in film grain with a microscope that does not detract from the larger image. There is no way a random set of microscopic film faults somehow morph into a lamp of particular shape, as in Frame 7 - something the author refers to as a "celestial phenomenon".

« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 01:41:19 AM by eurocentric »

August 08, 2020, 05:20:20 PM
Reply #14
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
If I look at it just right I can see what looks like the top half of a man with dark hair and wearing a jacket and tie.  I can not see a dog no matter how hard I try. But I believe if we look hard enough we could see other things too.

Yes its possible to imagine all sorts of things.
DB

August 22, 2020, 07:05:49 AM
Reply #15
Online

Nigel Evans


  • Plane2 has two objects which imo look like flecks of snow/ice melting on the lens. which suggest no magnification.
  • the frames with the sprocket holes would have to be of a bright uniform source of light?
  • the Plane photos share some similarities with the quebec object (note how it changes shape) -

August 23, 2020, 02:22:52 AM
Reply #16
Offline

sparrow


Thanks for the video Nigel.  Do you happen to know if there was any follow up on it?

August 23, 2020, 03:04:01 AM
Reply #17
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
  • Plane2 has two objects which imo look like flecks of snow/ice melting on the lens. which suggest no magnification.
  • the frames with the sprocket holes would have to be of a bright uniform source of light?
  • the Plane photos share some similarities with the quebec object (note how it changes shape) -

Looks like a foil balloon.  Maybe a child's balloon from a birthday party..

Regards

Star man

August 23, 2020, 01:13:07 PM
Reply #18
Online

Nigel Evans


Thanks for the video Nigel.  Do you happen to know if there was any follow up on it?
All i know is that it's on youtube.

August 23, 2020, 01:22:13 PM
Reply #19
Online

Nigel Evans



Looks like a foil balloon.  Maybe a child's balloon from a birthday party..

Regards

Star man
That would be a good explanation if the object wasn't surrounded by a blue/violet glow consistent with nitrogen plasma. Apparently incandescent and a blue/violet glow is a bit of a coincidence?
If it's giving people a headache then set the play speed to 0.25x
Regards.

August 25, 2020, 12:29:28 PM
Reply #20
Offline

marieuk




5. "Jaws"



5. Jaws - at first I thought this was a parachute unfurling, now I wonder if it's an item of clothing, such as a hat, blown upwards by the wind (or a downdraft).


Can anyone else see a dark human figure to the left and above the bright white area. Also, just above the mid part of the white area to the left hand side of a dark patch there is what looks like a dog's head -eyes, nose ear. It's more than likely just my brain trying to create patterns where there are none or not possible because of the scaling issues being discussed. Once you see it though it's hard to unsee it.


I can see a human figure too and if I turn it 90 degrees I can see what looks like a yeti having a sit down holding something in its left hand.  In one of the other photos, where there's a small bright light shape to the left I can see a humanoid face behind it, making it look like the light is connected to something the figure is holding?  Maybe i've spent too long looking at the photos  twitch7

August 25, 2020, 04:41:03 PM
Reply #21
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient

Looks like a foil balloon.  Maybe a child's balloon from a birthday party..

Regards

Star man
That would be a good explanation if the object wasn't surrounded by a blue/violet glow consistent with nitrogen plasma. Apparently incandescent and a blue/violet glow is a bit of a coincidence?
If it's giving people a headache then set the play speed to 0.25x
Regards.

It looks like the reflective baloon is reflecting the light from the sun always from the side facing the sun.  The blue hue I think is due to the way the camera captures the light at high magnification.  The lens may be causing some refraction.

Regards

Star man

August 26, 2020, 03:59:48 AM
Reply #22
Online

Nigel Evans



Looks like a foil balloon.  Maybe a child's balloon from a birthday party..

Regards

Star man
That would be a good explanation if the object wasn't surrounded by a blue/violet glow consistent with nitrogen plasma. Apparently incandescent and a blue/violet glow is a bit of a coincidence?
If it's giving people a headache then set the play speed to 0.25x
Regards.

It looks like the reflective baloon is reflecting the light from the sun always from the side facing the sun.  The blue hue I think is due to the way the camera captures the light at high magnification.  The lens may be causing some refraction.

Regards

Star man
If the blue violet glow was due to refraction then it should (very) strictly associate with the "incandescent" areas? Go to 3.05 and can you see that it doesn't?