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

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.




Using the cyberlink photo director I thought id try to find some familiar facial features in the image. So this is what I found below...



Hopefully from the image above you can see that there is no face in the middle of the head, but there is a face looking to the left with a nose, jaw, cheekbone structure and eye. The direction the face is looking fits perfect with the position of the arms and body. This to me is not the facial outline of a woman (as claimed by others to be his wife) but that of a man and from what I can guess is waiting for something. I know that the image is not as clear as one would like, however I moved through the different possible combinations of colours and attributes which do show more of the mouth but then lose other parts.

Just to throw another piece of weird and maybe help those debunkers to paint me as a loony, as I was finishing saving the image above I got up and looked out my bedroom window and above the city was a flashing light , very bright and moving very erratic jumping back and forth around 3 points. I called my partner to see which we both observed for 20 seconds where it just disappeared and hasn't been seen since. This is the best ufo sight Ive had yet.....

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.

originally posted by: liteonit6969

Hopefully from the image above you can see that there is no face in the middle of the head, but there is a face looking to the left with a nose, jaw, cheekbone structure and eye..

Hello liteonit6969, don't really know about the face looking left but I can definitely see there's no face in the middle of the head so good job.

Have you seen this video interview with the photographer and Jenny Randles?

Thought it was a pretty good one and he brings up some interesting aspects like missing negatives and government agents.

Mr Jim Templeton, who was at the time with the Cumbrian Fire Brigade, took his daughter onto the marshes nearby to have her photograph taken in her new frock. There was nobody else on the marshes apart from a couple of old ladies, and even the normally plentiful cows and sheep had huddled at the far end of the marsh as if they had been frightened.

Unwittingly, Mr Templeton captured the bizzare image above. The figure was not seen until the photograph was developed.

After the photograph was published in a local Cumbrian newspaper Jim Templeton received calls from the Government telling him "not to persure the matter and to drop it". In the meantime Jim had two visitors who called at the fire station where he worked. They were dressed like typical bowler hatted Civil Servants who when asked would not show their identification. "Can I ask where you are from?" asked Jim, "No you can't, we are Her Majesties Government" was the reply. They asked Jim to show them the site where he took the photograph and drove him to the site in their car, a Jaguar. On arriving they asked Jim where he had seen the figure in the photo to which Jim replied that he hadn't. At this they walked away and left him.

Cheers.

a reply to: liteonit6969

After my disastrous first attempt at creating a new topic I thought id take another go,

Like riding a horse you mess up and fall off you get right back on again. Good for you.

Awesome blowup of the "spacesuit". Thanks for putting in the work. Haven't looked into this one enough.

Waiting for the ones that know about all the other discussions on ATS to show up and tell everyone its already been discussed and not what the conclusion was…

a reply to: karl 12

Thankyou for the reply, no I haven't seen the interview yet so will have a watch, might have something in there that I don't know.

Regarding the image above I think the contrast between the dark green background gives the definite outline of the side of someones face. There is the outline of the nose, eyes and forehead. Also looking a bit closer and fiddling with the image attributes there is a mouth eyes and cheek bone structure. Im not sure that is an ear at the side of the head or just the way the colour has set.

I still find the story very interesting and should be looked into in a lot more detail, as in get the highest quality image possible and work to find something that is there that we have not found. Maybe something in the sky or if there were any ufo radar sightings around that time. I will have a bit of a look...but thanks again for the reply.

Interesting analysis. I once attempted to airbrush out the girl, and then draw in the rest of the body of the "spaceman". What I ended up with was a man trying to pull a dog along a leash.

a reply to: stormcell

I see it too. The hood can be seen resting on the upper back, and they have dark hair.

Still it's a strange photograph and even looking at it from the pov that it's the person's back, there's still unexplained aspects. Good point and thanks for bringing that up

You can not trust any sort of evidence from a digitised film photograph taken when film technology was crude compared to today's standards.The digitisation process makes a guess at what to do with fine detail,and further enhancements using different software that use different algorithms can produce different 'hidden details' each time. I bet if I run this image through various different Photoshop filters I can find a different face every time.Or a map of Moscow,or a circuit diagram for an electric toaster,or a recipe for Bratwurst etc etc.

Pareidolia will let you see a face on any side of a human head (purely because you're looking for a human face) when you look at a grainy and over processed copy of a copy of a copy of a photograph.Lets use some logic here instead of what you WANT to see.When people walk,they naturally hold their arms out beside or behind them,no one naturally holds their arms out in front of them unless they're dancing to the birdie song.The mother is walking away from us,is wearing the type of dress women wore in the 1960s,which we can see in the photo if we look closely enough.Or maybe she has stopped walking as she is far enough up the hill to see the magnificent view all the way across the Solway Firth.She's standing there with her hands on her hips saying "That's a reet good view that is our Jim" as folks from that part of the world used to say back then.

The problem I have is so many insinuate he was alone with daughter that day, but no, his wife and another daughter
was there also. In one article I read the man or his wife admitted that they had worn a white scarf as they did cover their head that way in those days. I still am not sure but to me the idea of someone so solid there but unseen by all three people seems beyond belief.

spacemancentral.com...

He had snapped three pictures and only the middle photo of the three, had this figure on it. (The third of the 3 photos is not in the public domain!).

1964 magazine cover and hair cover in style...


The dresses from the 60's very often included a matching jacket. Of course if it was the wife in the picture I would have to assume they were purposely lying the whole family.

Various small caps with netting in either or both front and back were also very in style.

a reply to: Imagewerx

I usually welcome comments that offer a different view on the image but I have to disagree with your comments. You say that it is a case of seeing what I want to see, this is also the case when you say it is a woman wearing a dress (how can you say its a dress when only the top part of body is in view). Also this was not a case of seeing what I WANT TO SEE as you put as I stated in the op that I was trying to debunk the idea that there was a face facing forward as claimed by a recent thread.
Furthermore I used three different software programs which showed the same image, gimp 2, photoshop, and cyberlink photodirector. But I do understand that one loses quality of image the more it is copied digitally, however I don't feel it is the case here.

Also the wee bit of comedy at the end adds well to the overall theme of your comment which is one of ridicule and short sightedness. But then again this maybe not the case as I may be only interpreting your comments the way I WANT to read them.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Sorry, but there's no "spaceman" there. It's the same woman in the same blue dress in all of the images:








If you pay attention to the images, you can tell that the woman's elbow is facing the camera, which means her back is facing the camera as well.

The "spaceman" is clearly the woman wearing the blue dress with very fair skin color. Unless the "spaceman" was wearing a sleeveless spacesuit.

a reply to: liteonit6969

I had the pleasure of meeting Jim quite some years ago at a local gathering, he kept to his story, as he had all those years. As I have said before in other threads on the subject, whether real or not, he certainly believed it was real, right until the end.

Do you know about the similar sighting at the same time, The blue streak missile test at Woomera?

Read more here (just Googled for a quick source, plenty more info out there on the subject)

spacemancentral.com...

ETA: I hadn't seen the vid posted by karl12, that mentions the Woomera incident.....haven't seen that video, nice to hear the good old Cumbrian twang in Jims voice, lol....

Look at the shadows on the girl's left arm. Notice how the shadow goes up the elbow. Compare that to the shadow on the figure behind her. The shadow is entirely below the elbow. It looks to me like the figure behind the girl is facing away from the camera.

a reply to: liteonit6969

I think the "spaceman" is actually the mother...



Excellent theory by an ATS member that sold me on the spaceman being the mom:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have you read my thread on the very same topic?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When you copy a digital image it doesn't lose any quality at all,you just copy across the same zeros and ones you had before.When you open a digital image,manipulate it VERY slightly (maybe even just make it a tiny bit brighter) and then save it,open it again sharpen it,save it,open it again etc etc,then it loses quality.Every time you copy something that isn't in the digital domain,you lose quality at a logarithmic rate.The first copy isn't too bad,but the more times you copy it,and then copy the copy because the original isn't available,the quicker you lose any useful low level detail that was present in the original.The image you use (and the very same one I used) is a scan from a colour magazine,which is almost certainly a scan from a colour print,so again multiple conversion processes that can easily mask what was originally there when the photo was taken.

Short sighted is certainly something I am not as I have been researching this very subject for quiet some time and always with an open mind.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Thankyou for your post (read this from a previous thread). I can understand the idea that it could be the girl shown in the other picture, but by someone adding blue to the middle part of the figure adds no weight to the argument.

I am open minded and try to offer an unbiased opinion as best as possible, which ive tried to do to the idea that the person at the back is the same small girl shown in the next picture you posted. But under no circumstances and no matter how hard I look at it that is not the figure of a girl. The upper body shape is that of someone muscular, and the arm is much too big compared to the young girl you say it is. The bicep is a lot bigger which if you ask yourself with an open mind you will agree.

I am trying to keep an open mind but when met with the regurgitated posts that to me is ridiculous to suggest this last, muscular figure is either a young child or a woman.

a reply to: Imagewerx

I just linked your post!!

Your explanation makes 100% sense, after reading it I believe the spaceman to be the mother.

Wish I could give you 1 million stars and flags for your awesome theory!!

I have always thought it was the back side of an individual.

It is pretty clear to see and it just fits that profile to perfectly.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: Imagewerx

I just linked your post!!

Your explanation makes 100% sense, after reading it I believe the spaceman to be the mother.

Wish I could give you 1 million stars and flags for your awesome theory!!

Why thank you Jenny.One day next year as close as possible to the date of the alleged sighting I plan to visit Burgh Marsh and see for myself how it MIGHT have happened.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
but by someone adding blue to the middle part of the figure adds no weight to the argument.

Blue wasn't added to the image. The color of the entire image was adjusted for clarity. You can actually take the original color image (posted above the false-color) and adjust the color of the entire image yourself in Photoshop and still see that a woman is standing in the background wearing a sleeveless dress and headdress.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
The upper body shape is that of someone muscular... The bicep is a lot bigger... to me is ridiculous to suggest this last, muscular figure...

You see "muscular", but in actuality, it looks like "flab", or "thick" (slightly overweight) arms of an adult woman.

Sorry if you think that all of this is "regurgitated", but the images really do speak for themselves.

I appreciate all the comments thus far. I know this is a story like many ufo/alien stories which is one that we are at the mercy of the person who told it originally. Taking the photo out of the conversation for a moment you have to look at what had Jim templeton got to gain from this story...which is nothing and more to the point he had a lot to lose as this was a time where people would not openly discuss such topics without ridicule. Also, Jim was an accomplished photographer for his time, thus knew how to take a picture of beauty which looking at the photo is meant to be his daughter with flowers against the greens of the hill and clear blue of the sky, at no point did he see this large person stand in full view. I know it is a possibility he didn't see it but he would have to be going blind not to see this person. Next, someone says this is a woman who is fat with "flabby arms" etc. Jims wife was not fat, and looking at the frame of the figure those are some broad shoulders that go into what looks a thin waist. Furthermore the biceps and forearm look to be that of a muscular man.
The suggestion it was his wife with the blue dress and the scarf does not fit. Either it is the young girl seen in the other photo with a blue dress but her arms are too skinny or its the wife which one cannot know what she is wearing. Also having seen these scarfs being worn I dont think it is one. They usually come to a point at the back and move down from the top of the head hiding any shape of the neck, this moves up the back and into the back of the neck.

Finally as set out above, it is basically up to the person who told the story originally to tell the truth which he feels he did right to his death. It is not me or others who say its a spaceman, it is Jim templeton and those two men who asked him as he states where did he see the other spaceman.
Therefore, it does not even seem to be in the question if it was the wife or child because you would have to deny everything that had been told by jim and what he was asked by those men in order for you to be correct. In that case why should you believe anything that anyone one says because if you dont see it yourself then you can not have 100% proof.