A month or two ago a woman named Elena posted a travelogue on the web about her solitary motorcycle ride through the deserted area around Chernobyl. With all the eerie pictures she took of the abandoned, irradiated 'ghost town,' her travelogue quickly became one of the most linked-to sites on the net. Now there are accusations that her travelogue wasn't completely honest. Apparently she didn't go around alone on a motorcycle. She went in a car with her husband and a friend. Elena defends herself, admitting that much of her story was 'more poetry' than reality, but noting that most of it was still reality. I'm inclined to side with her. The pictures of Chernobyl, and what it's become, were real. How much does it really matter that she made them more interesting by wrapping them in a tale about a solitary motorcycle ride? (via JohnFord.net)
Comments
It matters if you care about ethics. I've done a hoax or two myself, but come clean when the game is up.
I would suggest that every "I live to debunk things" geek out there fly over to russia, take the tour, and publish their own web page. (Might set em back all of $1200 if they stay a few weeks and see the sights) Make the captions as boring and mundane as they like. The photos will still speak for themselves. And with luck that extra 20 rads after rolling around in the moss all day trying to debunk the "radiation is bad for you" thing they'll be less likely to reproduce.
If any of you dorks out there actually do go there get some photos of Kiev as well. And make sure to pack 4-5 rolls of toilet paper as it tends to be scarce at the worst possible times.
WHDT-TV v. GM
http://www.serpentswall.com
Turkey.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mozgovaya/116433.html
Notice how many of the pictures are similar? Some are nearly identical, while others are the same location but photographed from a different angle. Maybe they both took the same tour?
An English translation of the above link from http://www.translate.ru:
http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?lang=en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livejournal.com%2Fusers%2Fmozgovaya%2F116433.html&direction=re&template=General&cp1=NO&cp2=NO&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&psubmit2;.x=40&psubmit2;.y=16
Why did Elena publish some fiction as fact? In the April 30, 2004 archive on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, she states "I just wanted to show people Chernobyl". Fair enough. She is apparently fond of creative writing, as well (and is quite good at it). It is a real shame that Elena didn't put a disclaimer somewhere in her website. She tries to make people aware, weaves a very good yarn, and created an otherwise excellent site. Tiny text tucked in an obscure place would do. As of this date, such a disclaimer is nowhere to be found.
As for Mary Mycio's accusations, remember that Mary has vested interest in all this - a book coming out about Chernobyl. Why would people pay for the book when they can look at Elena's website for free? How do we know that the accusations she made against the website are 100% true?
Apparently, the original site was later relocated to a server on Boot Networks (http://www.kiddofspeed.com, www.gulagtales.com and http://www.theserpentswall.com are all registered to Boot, not Elena, and, except for theserpentswall contain dated versions of the site). In the scrolling text box at the bottom of http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm, it states:
"As the only email contact, I have seen each of the moving emails that were directed to "Elena."
Her words have definitely made the world think about this piece of forgotten history. I have seen every request from news agencies from around the world, each of the big names, begging for interviews."
What is this all about? The only e-mail contact? It seems to imply that the host of that site is receiving and reading e-mails the senders thought were going to Elena. If true, that is deceptive as all hell. I hope it is simply a case of my misinterpreting his words.
FYI - the real homepage is now at http://www.elenafilatova.com. It seems our web journalist friend has added some battlefield sections that appear to be 100% factual - and also very well done. I, for one, wish her well.
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/international/europe/15chernobyl.html
There are also new pics posted from Elena's second ride through Chernobyl.
"As for Mary Mycio's accusations, remember that Mary has vested interest in all this - a book coming out about Chernobyl. Why would people pay for the book when they can look at Elena's website for free? How do we know that the accusations she made against the website are 100% true?"
only taunting as to the readers as it is
to herself. Why would anyone like to cheat
so many minds?
Evidently you can look at Mary Mycio's website for free, too: http://www.chernobyl.in.ua
Yes, and, not surprisingly, many of the photos are like those on Elena's site, and appear to be taken in the same general area. Or are those hoaxes too? The book is not free, however, and Mary does appear unhappy at having her thunder stolen. Evidence for this is that she throws yet another brick at Elena: http://www.chernobyl.in.ua/en/faq/15.
Let's look a little closer at the statements made on that page:
Q:
"Did you ever see that woman, Elena, that rides around the zone on her motorcycle? Her website http://www.kiddofspeed.com was a big thing a few years ago."
A few years ago? It is still a big thing now. Why claim that it is not? And why reference the old version of the site instead of http://www.elenafilatova.com, which is much improved?
A:
"It was also one of the internet's biggest hoaxes. "Elena", whose real name is Lena Filatova, never rode a motocycle in the zone.
She took a day trip in a car with her husband and carried a motorcycle helmet while he snapped pictures of her."
So? The fact that Elena falsely claimed to have rode a motorcycle instead of in a car may be less than honest, but it is not the end of the world. Get over it.
"Her website is full of misleading "facts" and bad science."
Yet those "facts" and "science" do much to make her tale very entertaining. Although Elena may have taken some liberties with science and physics, there is also a great deal in her Chernobyl stories that is factual.
"But it brought the subject of Chernobyl to a huge, international audience. And I commend Lena for using her notoriety to bring attention to other aspects of Ukraine's history in updated versions of her website."
'Her notoriety'? Those remarks commend Elena, but in a rather hostile tone. 'Her fame' would have been a better choice of words.
Remarks which appear to be made to squelch the competiton are hardly the best means of debunking a hoax. That is not to say that Elena's Chernobyl story was entirely accurate, as it did deviate from the truth in some places. It also contained much that was true, and was not created solely to deceive and prank. As such, it does not really qualify as a hoax.
____
She's not very good at creative writing at all. The original website that appeared in the winter of 2004 was barely literate, scientifically asinine and cobbled together from photos in coffee table books that are a dime a dozen in Kiev. Once the site took off, she evidently got other folks to help her with the text. So, give her credit for being a manipulative liar. But not for creative writing.
__________
Why are you so determined to defend Lena's lies? The old version of the site is the one that I saw when it was the "it" thing on the net. Improving your site once it gets attention, once you get lots of foreign guys thinking with their dicks to help a hot babe with the text and science, is something else.
___________
So? The fact that Elena falsely claimed to have rode a motorcycle instead of in a car may be less than honest, but it is not the end of the world. Get over it.
_______
I suspect you may be one of those guys thinking with his dick. The image of the hot babe on a bike blasting through a Mad Max radioactive zone was what made the site and Lena hot. Of course it's not the end of the world that it wasn't true. But who the hell is talking about the end of the world here? Only you. Get over yourself.
___________
Yet those "facts" and "science" do much to make her tale very entertaining. Although Elena may have taken some liberties with science and physics, there is also a great deal in her Chernobyl stories that is factual.
____________
In fact, there is very little that is factual. YOu can't take liberties with science and physics. Period.
______________
'Her notoriety'? Those remarks commend Elena, but in a rather hostile tone. 'Her fame' would have been a better choice of words.
_____________
You get fame for doing something positive. You get notoriety for doing something negative. Lena lied. And lied big time. Anyone who has anything to do with Chernobyl in a real way finds her antics unpleasant to say the least. I think Mycio is being charitable.
Keep defending her. But -- dick to brain -- realize that there are no neurons in that part that's driving you. That's called science. What you're talking about is romance -- and I wish you well.
Craig
I can confirm that pictures are close to truth and it does look like this there... take it or leave it. Who cares..
__________________
If you are writing, you obviously care. Thus, far be it for you to tell me to "move on".
_________________________
Some people do not believe in Heroshima either, so, it does not mean it never happend. You wish...
__________________________
Some people actually know how to spell "Hiroshima", which was a well documented event. I'd be interested in knowing who are these people who "do not believe in Heroshima [sic]". But Lena's little motorcycle fantasy wase not a well documented event. In fact, there are no documents proving it whatsoever. What documents exist, prove otherwise. She made up a story, scanned pictures from coffee table books and then, finally, took a trip, in a car, herself when the website took off.
_______________________________
I can confirm that pictures are close to truth and it does look like this there.
__________________________________
I have never denied that the pictures -- those she stole from coffee table books, and those she took herself when she FINALLY took a car trip there -- are of real things.
____________________________________
.. take it or leave it. Who cares..
________________________
You do.
I don't know who doesn't believe in Hiroshima. That's a question for CarNet.
I don't what Lena's motives were. Despite all of the attention to her and her website, she has remained silent except to admit that she did embellish "for love of her country". I suspect she's embarassed for being caught in creating one of the great internet hoaxes. In her place, I would be, too.
She states that she wanted to show the world Chernobyl 20 years later, and she does. Some basic layman discussion of radiation risks is subject to criticism, but she never claims to be technically proficient.
The fiction of the motorcyle ride through the area appears to be only partly fictional as she does seem to enjoy riding and has ridden around Ukraine, taking pictures. The fact that she romanticized some parts of the travelogue, serves as far as I am concerned as a cautionary tale about telling of the truth. If you fictionalize any parts of it, your loss of credibility seems to afflict the whole--be forewarned.
While I am happy to learn the truth of how the "tour" was conducted, I am still glad that I could see the pictures and read the descriptions sitting here at my desk, which I couldn't have done without her having done the work of constructing the website.
A little photo journalism helps to get some perspective about the magnitude of the disaster there, and some of the risks of fission power plants; something that we can all ponder as nuclear power seems destined to come to a site near you...
In this day and age, nobody's right about anyone until they CITE ACTUAL SOURCES. The lot of you are equally as trustworthy as Elena until someone has something verifiable.
I believe Elena is a sneaky little Russian. We have people in America who are afraid to ride bikes, but they say they ride bikes. Elena might suffer from this. But Ve have vays of dealing vith her.
I would think it would be silly to go by yourself. What if you were walking through there and you hit your head and knocked out for say an hour with 600 rad. You would wake up very sick.
Who knows where that photo was taken, she might wipe it clean every now and then. She claims it was her pride. Also, would you let radiated dust build on a bike you have to lay upon to ride?
You may want to ask all shifts at the entrance gate, both of them, becuase there are two.
Not to sound rude, but whats up with the "v"s about 3/4 down. Also, what do you mean by ways of dealing with her?
I say we should sabotage the nuclear power plants. If a nuclear power plant were to burn and destroy an American city or maybe in France there would be a hueg outcry.
But if that plant had a melt down in March instead of April and that cloud blew over Kiev. Could you imagine Kiev with nobody living there? That's what would have happened. It's not worth it. If you work at a nuclear power plant don't ever get pissed and cut off the water to the fuel rods. Because that would mean trouble.
IF we grow hemp we can get rid of the nuclear power plants. Hemp a renewable resource that will replace all forms of power. Now matter if it's oil, coal or nuclear all any of them do is heat water to make steam to turn turbines with coils of wire to produce electricity. Any thing that will burn will do this. So why use something so dangerous as nuclear power. THe truth be known they will keep nuclear power plants so they can prodcue plutonium for nuclear bombs. Bombs they have tested all over the world hundreds and hundreds of time and each time they do they put out more radiation and the truth be known this has caused 90% of the cancer cases. When the people of the USA start slaughtering these politicians we can start to correct the garbage they have done to the world.