Chernobyl

[AZKomet]

I came across this today. Not my ride, however, it does give some info on riding through Chernobyl. I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of it? Anyone have any ideas?? Some interesting pics though.

 

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/chapter1.html

[Tony_K]

She didn't ride it!

That was all fabricated.

She went on a goverment sanctioned tour with her gear.

 

No matter... the images are haunting.

[Mike O]

Dave,

 

This is a hoax:

 

"According to an LA Times article, "Elena" actually toured Chernobyl with her husband and a few other people while on an organized tour bus trip. The motorcycle helmet was a prop. And many of the photographs on her website, which she took credit for, were previously published."

 

Mike O

[Huzband]

Another fabrication of the...

 

Oops. Politics creepin' in.

 

I'll stop now.

 

Time for bed, anyway.

[AZKomet]

Well that stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ya can't trust anybody now can you???

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova

[AZKomet]

Thanks JFF...."Just the facts ma'am...just the facts" People people people!!!

[cgs500]

What amazes me is how people stage items after a disaster to tell a story. This happened with some pictures taken after Katrina. I know that when I returned home after my first trip to the Gulf Coast I was disappointed in the pictures I had taken. They didn’t convey the environment 360 degrees around that picture. The smell of decaying vegetation, sea life and God only knows what else aren’t present when viewing a picture. Maybe attemping to convey the emotion is why the staging takes place.

 

As far as why a person would “fake a bike trip” I don know. I do know that in Mississippi Katrina brought con men out of the woodwork. A person capitalizing on the suffering of others for their own personal gain was everywhere. Contractors received most of the press but land was cheap immediately after the storm and people where taken advantage of. Loads of donated goods being re-routed and individuals from areas not even affected loaded up pickup trucks with goods from distribution centers and selling them on e-bay (MRE’s and canned water were big items).

 

I am not implying this is the motive in this situation; it may just be her attempt to let others know the event has a lasting effect.

[TyTass]

I doubt her story was intended to deceive anyone so much as provide a vehicle to get someone to read about a terribly tragic event who otherwise would not have read the story.

 

I accept that writers - whether they be novelists, poets, screenwriters, whatever - are not reporters/journalists. And as such, their intent is not to report facts but illuminate some issue or truth.

 

It seems to me the "truth" she was trying to illuminate was the horrors of Chernobyl. Obviously, we all read her "tale", and false though the pretense may be, the truth in the horrors of Chernobyl are worth not forgetting.

 

So I believe she succeeded in making her point.

[David]

I doubt her story was intended to deceive anyone...

 

Huh? It was clearly designed to deceive everyone. I was around in those days when she was defending herself.

 

She's a liar and a cheat, and I don't care how precious the core message--what she did was wrong.

[Mike O]

It seems to me the "truth" she was trying to illuminate was the horrors of Chernobyl.

And she chose to target motorcycle enthusiasts only? Why was the deception necessary since she could have reached a far greater audience and now not have her motives questioned? It certainly WAS intended to deceive (pictures with SHOEI helmet bag strapped over her shoulder? What does that have to do with Chernobyl?)

 

Mike O

[TyTass]

Huh? It was clearly designed to deceive everyone. I was around in those days when she was defending herself.

 

She's a liar and a cheat, and I don't care how precious the core message--what she did was wrong.

 

This seems a very small rendition of Welles' "War of the World's" radio broadcast. And we now look upon it as an unfortunate attempt at entertainment. Some people killed themselves over it. Some people found it ridiculous entertainment. Some people simply ignored it.

 

My point here is to say that her work was a fictional account about a moto-tour through the poisoned region around Chernobyl.

 

It seems to me it is for entertainment for some - and reflection for others.

 

I for one do not need to take everything I read on the web as fact.

 

There are bazillions of websites out there posing a "news-worthy." Hers is a personal website ... i.e., not to be taken seriously.

[PhillyFlash]

But the problem was that she presented her motorcycle journey as fact. She intentionally deceived the public. And when challenged about it, she perpetuated that deception. Based on your premise, if I wrote a story telling how I survived Katrina and the horrors that I suffered through in New Orleans during those days, even though I've never been to New Orlean, it would be OK because I'd be bringing the public's attention to the victims of Katrina. I can't agree with that. Telling people it's a fictional account based on real reports would be acceptable. Telling them I lived through it would not. There needs to be some accountability in reporting "true accounts," otherwise we'd have a very hard time distinguishing fact from fiction. I don't think this compared with Welles' Halloween prank.

[David]

Hers is a personal website ... i.e., not to be taken seriously.

 

I don't know about her website, but you're just flat wrong about the account. Again, were you there seeing her participate in the online discussions? If you weren't, get the facts before making these statements. If you were, then we'll just have to admit to wildly different understandings of reality.

 

She presented it as a factual account, and she kept presenting it as a factual account until she was backed into a corner with some good detective work from people who don't appreciate liars.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

This seems a very small rendition of Welles' "War of the World's" radio broadcast. And we now look upon it as an unfortunate attempt at entertainment. Some people killed themselves over it. Some people found it ridiculous entertainment. Some people simply ignored it.

 

THe original broadcast of WOTW was never intended to be taken as real; it had warnings scattered throughout, and commercial interruptions, but listeners at the time unfortunately just werent' saavy enough to realize what was really going on. Although it was intended to carry an air of authenticity (just like the best movie special effects of today), there was never an intention to deceive the listening audience.

 

The Chernobyl ride, OTOH, was always presented as factual and maintained by the author as such even after people pointed out the impossibility of it. She set out to deceive people and worked hard to maintain that deception against critical analyses. It was not about entertainment as much as it was about at self-aggrandizement.

[TyTass]

I spent some time researching (albeit online) and have found that you guys are indeed correct (as you already know).

 

She had indeed presented it in 2004 as fact and defended it as such for quite some time. Silly. Her story is now presented on her website as though a story to highten awareness.

 

I was unaware upon reading that it had ever been submitted as truth. I simply took it as a story to highten awareness - not as a trusted source. As I have said before, I trust little from the web with good reason. There are few authoritative sites and so many "experts."

 

Mitch, I think you hit the nail on the head about self-aggrandizement.

 

I appreciate your correction.

[Knifemaker]

Wrong as it have been to present this "tale" in it's form.., as a person without alot of knowledge of this event I was more engrossed in the pictures of this tragic mistake than over thinking any other intentions of this woman. I thank her for consolidating this history lesson for me to read.