Solway Firth Spaceman Revisited..........(Clear Face)

a reply to: liteonit6969

For the believers, why did they never show us the photos he must have taken of the rest of the Family that day? I have never seen any and the photo just after the one in question has been withheld from the public.

a reply to: Char-Lee

Why would anyone want to see the rest of the photos? The figure appeared only in this picture so there would be no need to see the rest of his days pictures. Also this happened in a time unlike today. There was no request to see photos of nothing.
I feel in this situation there are only two ways one can approach it. The first is to say he was lying, so there is no need to analyse to photo to see if it was his wife or not. The second is to believe what he said and then analyse the pictures with the information he gave us. The information he gave us is not one where it is his wife but a "spaceman" which was backed up by the men in black who called them "spacemen". So there is no point from what ive read in the thread so far is to state as fact it is a woman or child and make assumptions of what the wife could have been wearing etc. The camera did not pick up a blue dress as claimed by others, its a white full body (upperbody) type of clothing.

Finally I ask you looking at the picture I feel shows an outline of a face looking left toward the sky, do you see the face or not? I dont really care who it is because its guess work and all we can go on is this mans word.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Because if the rest of the family was in the other photos, it would be even easier to compare what the others were wearing to the woman in the background.

I see no face or even a hint of a face. We have to get past the sleeveless dress that the woman in the background is wearing before anything else.

Wifey! And yes other photos probably confirm what wifey is wearing.
Im not a sceptic but really some of this stuff is obviously not ET

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Can I ask you how you are seeing a sleeveless dress? You can only see the upper body, how can you assume that it is a dress, skirt, trousers, shorts. And im the one seeing what I want to see?. Furthermore looking over the thread that was linked to, all I see are assumptions which were dressed up as good as facts by the op saying they have studied the subject. A lot was made of the figures head keeping in with the shadows of the girl in the foreground. However there is no shadow what so ever of the figure in the background which should have been running off at a 2 oclock angle?

I can see why you assume it is sleeveless but that is only on one arm and the line from the armpit does not continue to the edge of the arm. Also if it were sleeveless there would be a change in shape between the sleeve and arm, if it was too loose it would have hung over the arm, whereas if it was too tight the arm would have bulged over the sleeve.

Looking at the image I see a balding man looking to the left. He has sideburns with hair going around the back. The clothes he is wearing are white. Not the blue you claim to have been able to make using some software. I have been trying for the last 30 mins to recreate what you show with the blue and it is not possible.

I feel my opinion fits better than what you have said. The shape of the head turned to the left fits perfectly to the body shape and stance. Your opinion is based on rendering everything about the story to be a lie and what I feel is not an honest image of the blue of the top. My opinion fits with the story of the man who took the photo, and using all the visual evidence and shadowing etc.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, because it must be good if you can see through a person and know a person is wearing a dress

a reply to: liteonit6969

Alright, to satisfy semantics, we'll take out the dress and just say whatever top (shirt) she's wearing is sleeveless. That is undeniable in all the images posted.

But as you've said, people will see what they want to see.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Why would anyone want to see the rest of the photos? The figure appeared only in this picture so there would be no need to see the rest of his days pictures.

Ahh to see the size and shape and clothing of the whole group...

No I don't see a face, but i certainly am glad you tried it. I have never written anything off as a sure hoax until we actually can be sure.

a reply to: Char-Lee

I understand what you are saying but the point I am making is if you don't accept what Jim tempelton said then its pointless analysing the photo. If he said it wasn't his wife then why try to find something that isn't there like it being a dress etc. The reason for analysing and taking time on the image is to see if there is any truth, not TRY to debunk him. If you don't believe he wouldn't see his wife standing in front of him then the discussion is futile because why would you listen to me if you dnt listen to the source.

The reason this topic has been brought up again and again is because it isn't straight forward as some have pointed out. If it was as clear as a lady wearing a dress with her back to us then why has it been discussed so much? But maybe it is a balding man in a sleeveless dress if that fits what you want better?

a reply to: _BoneZ_

As ive just said if it is as straight forward as you state it being a woman with a blue sleeveless dress then why has it been discussed so often? You have obviously made your mind up a long time ago as shown by your copy and paste of your images from a long time back, so why do you feel it necessary for you to follow the thread and have a long debate about it?
You have yet to answer one of my questions regarding the image, shadows, the colours etc? All you have brought to the topic is the same post from another thread and the constant repetition of it being a woman in a blue sleeveless dress. So if you are serious about the topic look at the image in depth and look for the answers to the questions I pose, or you can just copy and paste someone elses post?

S&F for u OP. This photo gives me the creeps every time I see it. Never gets old, either.

Btw, it's not the mother....

a reply to: liteonit6969

I understand what you are saying but the point I am making is if you don't accept what Jim tempelton said then its pointless analysing the photo.

I agree. I don't need to see the rest of the photos because this is silly.

a reply to: liteonit6969

If you don't believe he wouldn't see his wife standing in front of him then the discussion is futile because why would you listen to me if you dnt listen to the source.

I was a photographer who sold photos for years when my children were small, we went to a similar place every year several times when the different flowers were in bloom.

It is very easy to be focused on the kid you are photographing and NOT realize anyone else got in the way, that is why you take a lot of pictures. This is not a controlled setting.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Hello

After my disastrous first attempt at creating a new topic I thought id take another go, and no better way than to revisit one of my favourite images regarding alien/space. I don't feel there is any need to go over the back story of the Solwayfirth spaceman as I assume if you are on here you will know the rough story. I had left this topic behind a while back but it was a recent post suggesting half a face was visible looking forward. This idea that the spaceman was facing forward bemused me as it didn't fit the posture of the figure, but it suited the dea of it being a spaceman with the dark helmet.

This is the file I decided to have a closer look at to see if I could debunk or add to this idea of a face being there.

snip
So I welcome any views or opinions on the image and maybe someone can tell me if im looking for something that is not there.

I won't venture to guess if it's a real figure in real physical time but one thing that is for sure and that's that it is not facing the camera. The back is what is seen with the right arm bent normally as if it had its right hand in the pant's right pocket. The figure seems to be tall and may be wearing a helmet that covers the whole head with the back portion looking opaque.

Enhancing the photo even in the most exotic way is not going to reveal anything about the figure but I would like to see the space around it enhanced for any invisible anomalies. Different waves will reveal different wavelengths. One never knows.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Char-Lee

I understand what you are saying but the point I am making is if you don't accept what Jim tempelton said then its pointless analysing the photo. If he said it wasn't his wife then why try to find something that isn't there like it being a dress etc. The reason for analysing and taking time on the image is to see if there is any truth, not TRY to debunk him. If you don't believe he wouldn't see his wife standing in front of him then the discussion is futile because why would you listen to me if you dnt listen to the source.

The reason this topic has been brought up again and again is because it isn't straight forward as some have pointed out. If it was as clear as a lady wearing a dress with her back to us then why has it been discussed so much? But maybe it is a balding man in a sleeveless dress if that fits what you want better?

You're accepting Jim's story as being gospel,how do you know that he didn't make up all of it? From the chemist's remark when seeing the photo right through to the mysterious MIBs could all be made up and Jim carried it on as long as possible because he found it all amusing.Now he's rolling about in his grave and laughing at the people up here because they're still arguing about a photo of his wife walking up a hill.
I've since shown the two photos to people who don't know the back ground story and all they see are the same two people in each photo.People who don't spend any time on conspiracy websites see what logic tells us is there,people who do spend too much time on conspiracy websites see what they want to see.

I ask again because you never answered my question,have you read my thread about this subject?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Imagewerx

I have looked over your thread twice and appreciate the work you have put into it, but all I see is a lot of assumptions being made that relies fully on a person completely missing his wife standing in full view behind his daughter. I don't care how many times someone says you can be too focussed on the subject, but there is no other background structures to disguise the person from view. There is a blue background and no body else around. Also I don't take what Jim Templeton says as Gospel, but if you say the picture is his wife then not only is he mistaken but he also knowingly contacts the local paper and create a story of men in black contacting him and referring to the "Spacemen". I just don't feel that anyone would allow a bit of a giggle be the whole meaning and last message of ones life.

Ive did a bit of analyse of the image below taken from your thread. I feel there is some confusion as to who the person is in the image. Some people have said its another young girl and based their idea being the wife on guessing what clothes she is wearing.
What I take from your thread you feel that this person is his wife. The person you show as shown in my picture has thin arms, and brown hair. Also the length and thickness of the persons arm does not correlate with the length and thickness of the "spaceman". Furthermore as you say its a sleeveless dress, there is no second sleeve on the other side. Therefore what I think the line coming from the arm pit is merely the shape of ones back and the joint of the arm. This happens when one has a muscular shape which I see on a regular basis . And the way this is viewable is because the person is wearing a full length top which is too tight. The uniform colour of the top fits as there is no difference at all between the body and the arms so the pic of the blue body looks to be a lie.



There I have answered your questions. Now could you answer my questions from a fresh perspective and not from the view you have formed from your own thread. Where is the shadow of the person, where is the colour of the persons clothes etc.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Thankyou for taking the time out of your day to make your comment. For such a ridiculous and silly conversation I don't understand why you would go out of your way to get the picture you have inserted and comment. If it was so silly would you not just ignore and move on. Either you have too much time on your hands or you are fulfilling your contract of creating widespread ridicule of any thread. Thanks for a look into your life and your possible objectives

a reply to: _BoneZ_

you do make a solid case here...

One thing doesn't fit with me...the arms of the "spaceman" seem more manly than the woman seen in one of the photos. Also...upper body of the "spaceman" seems more muscular...bigger than that of an average woman.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Imagewerx

I have looked over your thread twice and appreciate the work you have put into it, but all I see is a lot of assumptions being made that relies fully on a person completely missing his wife standing in full view behind his daughter.

He didn't see her because looking through the view finder of that camera, there is a blind spot from the little bit of research I've done on this subject.

I think Bonez' post on page 1 pretty much sums up the debunking of this photo as being anything exta-ordinary or paranormal or what have you.

I admit it's an interesting photo, and was a tough to figure out for a long time (although it always looked like the back of a person to me so it never made much sense). But seeing the wife there in other pictures, diving out of frame, wearing a sleeve-less dress has pretty much put this one to rest imho.

a reply to: Nola213

Yes I have had a look at the image what would have been in view, but the figure was still in sight, but only slightly. Also this is not an camera where you throw a cover over your head to blind yourself from everything, its pretty much a camera like todays where you look through with one eye closed, but this does not include constant repositioning. For this to happen he would hve to be staring into the camera for a while for the wife to come walking into view and then stand there for a while. That's a long time staring into a camera. Also as said the girl in the other picture does not resemble the figure at all.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Thankyou for taking the time out of your day to make your comment. For such a ridiculous and silly conversation I don't understand why you would go out of your way to get the picture you have inserted and comment. If it was so silly would you not just ignore and move on. Either you have too much time on your hands or you are fulfilling your contract of creating widespread ridicule of any thread. Thanks for a look into your life and your possible objectives

No contract. In a surge of cosmic genius, I had created the picture months ago for an identical thread. Why would I pass up this opportunity to share?

In response to your comment about how we don't need to see the rest of pictures if we don't take the photographer's word at face value, I replied that I agree. Its a silly picture, lets collectively move on to less annoying topics.

My personal opinion is that this is a silly picture. Notice that I am not commenting on you personally and/or your life. and I already ignore 99.99% of the threads here.