Ok sorry guys,I was genuinely going to put the answer up after about 10 minutes but got called away unexpectedly.One thing I must say though is that I
don't give a flying fig leaf about stars and flags,which you can believe or not the choice is up to you.
Right,a bit more background to this whole thing.I'm now in my early 50s and have never seen anything in my whole life I can't explain,crop circles I
don't have a rational explanation for but I have yet to see one in real life.I first saw this photo in an unexplained mysteries type of magazine about
20 years ago,and it REALLY spooked me out more than any other photo I'd ever seen before that.This was more down to seeing the title first and having
this seed planted in my mind that this really WAS a spaceman and not some more mundane down-to-earth explanation.Ever since then despite the fact that
I'm cynical as hell about almost everything,I still believed this photo to show a spaceman as I couldn't explain it any other way.
I showed the photos (including the one showing part of his wife) to someone a short time ago without telling him the whole story about the spaceman
and obviously without this seed planted in his mind.When asked what he saw in THE original photo he replied "I can see his wife with her back to the
camera walking away,why do you ask?" "Don't you see a spaceman wearing a spacesuit?" I asked. "No sorry mate,was I supposed to? Look there's the
sleeves on her dress,there's the little collar thing they used to have on the back of dresses in those days etc etc...."
Suddenly the spaceman had disappeared for good and had been replaced by nothing more fantastic than Jim's wife who had every reason to be in the
photo.
So I went back to the photos and came up with this lot.
This is Jim's wife Annie.......
And this is Jim with his new Kodak SLR camera,and at this time SLR cameras were still something of a novelty.....
(The above isn't really relevant to the mystery,but is included for completeness).
This photo again shows the photos were taken from a low down viewpoint looking up a slight incline with Jim's wife Annie to the right.Notice the dress
Annie is wearing,how short the arms are (like a capped sleeve t-shirt) and the just visible collar right at the edge of the photo......
This image is how the scene looks from the road (this is as good a guess as I can make as to where exactly this happened,but will be within about 50
metres in either direction).....
They would have been quite some way across the grassy bit and probably at the bottom of the dyke that was made to keep the sea out during very high
tides.
Now take a look at this close up of the alleged space suit wearing intruder.......
Red outline #1 looks to be the same as the collar in the earlier photo and #2 is exactly the right position for the sleeve of her dress to finish.She
has dark (almost black hair) as shown in the photo of her and Jim which matches up with what we see in the original photo.Although not shown in any
other photos taken that day,she appears to be wearing some kind of hat or headscarf.
As suggested earlier it appears white purely because that portion of the image is overexposed,from the shadows on the girls face the sun was probably
about overhead at the time and film in those days was less tolerant to light and dark (dynamic range) than what we use today is.
The camera was an SLR which means the viewfinder actually shows the view through the lens.Modern SLRs normally show about 90% of the available scene
and crop the outside edges,but in those days the viewfinder was a LOT more restricted and wouldn't have shown much more than about 50-60% of the
available scene.These cameras were of course manual focus and needed a lot of concentration on the very middle of the viewfinder to match up the
halves of the split screen EXACTLY to assure perfect focus.All of this along with them being a lot darker than todays viewfinders are would have meant
that any activity in the background of the scene being photographed could well pass unnoticed.
edit on 3-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)