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

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
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.

The arms do look odd but I guess its due to over exposure?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I apologise for the comment on you personally and totally revoke it. Also I appreciate your comments and picture as we could all use a dose of your cosmic comedy genius to lighten up with all the doom and gloom going on at the minute.
I do accept it is a difficult situation to analyse as there is a lot of guess work without other photos showing who else may have been in the area that day.

However I stand by my comments in that it does not look anything like a woman in a blue dress as some had claimed. Whereas the image I feel shows a figure looking to the left fits perfectly with the shape and posture of the figure. Also as said before I find it strange that the figure has no shadow moving off the ground at a 2oclock angle like the girl in the foreground.

Though I respect you opinion and the way you have interpreted the picture because it is merely down to the interpretation of the person.

a reply to: liteonit6969

I apologise for the comment on you personally and totally revoke it

oh that's ok. I deserve it sometimes.

in general, I probably know more about this photo then I care to which is why I will click on the thread when I see it. I have seen the arguments go back an forth repeatedly with the end result being exactly where we are now. What we have is an odd photo. Spaceman or mother in a dress, its odd. Putting the photo into as much context as you can is important to determining what it is. Obviously photos from the same session would be useful but if they are not being shared then we are prevented from putting the photo into more context. What we are left with is ambiguity.

a reply to: liteonit6969

It amazes me that this image gets the traction it does! It has never struck me as anything but a hoax.

My first impression is that the "spaceman" is some kind of doll-based model. It always strikes me that it looks like an "Action Man". Action Man didn't come out in England until 1966, I don't know if you could buy a "G.I. Joe" here but, for example, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a G.I. Joe could have been acquired via a family from a USAF base.

A quick play around with a headless, 1964, G.I. Joe reveals an uncanny resemblance to the proportions of the "Spaceman".

a reply to: HotblackDesiato

Thanks for your input, but as established and accepted by almost everyone there is someone in the image and not a doll added after. This backed up by Kodak offering a million pound reward for anyone to debunk the figure not being there. So the only way for your idea of it being a G.I Joe is if it is stuck to the back of the girls head. That would be a sight... .

But I do appreciate your opinion and that you feel it looks like some sort of military clothing and not a dress of a woman. I wonder if there is a way to use the size of the flowers on the ground to determine the distance from the little girl and in doing so get an idea of the size of the person at the back.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
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.

I got the same impression, but I guess women were built more sturdily back then [JK - I have no idea if they were]. But it is definitely someone's back, not front. Also I hadn't noticed that it was a blue dress until I saw the enhancements. Just looked like a long sleeve top with seams at the shoulders, but now I see the color was washed out against her white skin.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

Thanks for your input, but as established and accepted by almost everyone there is someone in the image and not a doll added after. This backed up by Kodak offering a million pound reward for anyone to debunk the figure not being there. So the only way for your idea of it being a G.I Joe is if it is stuck to the back of the girls head. That would be a sight...

.

I don't think it's accurate to say "as established and accepted by almost everyone", where is the study to support that assertion?

Regardless, it would be very easy to position a doll behind the girls head by means of a simple stake.

originally posted by: HotblackDesiato


I don't think it's accurate to say "as established and accepted by almost everyone", where is the study to support that assertion?

Regardless, it would be very easy to position a doll behind the girls head by means of a simple stake.

As established by Kodak is enough for me.

a reply to: draknoir2

I had the GI Joe astronaut set. I don't think there is any pictures of it floating behind my head though.

originally posted by: draknoir2
As established by Kodak is enough for me.

Kodak established that there wasn't a doll/model positioned behind the girl?

I don't think so!

a reply to: draknoir2

To my eye and having used 3 different software programs to enhance/ fiddle about with it I also felt it was a long sleeve top with what you say is the seams at the under arm moving up to the edge of should like what would be expected. The blue image you are referring to in my opinion is not correct. I don't like to say it was created to add to a argument to debunk this, but there is no difference in colours etc between the arm and the body.Like I have said I have used various software to check this and there is no way this is possible. If someone can tell me how this is done then im open to the suggestion.
I am in the process of measuring the difference in the size of the flowers from front to the back of the image to give some sort of estimate the size of the person and where their feet should be and in doing so find out if there is a shadow missing as there is no shadow of any figure on the grass like the little girls.

originally posted by: HotblackDesiato

originally posted by: draknoir2
As established by Kodak is enough for me.

Kodak established that there wasn't a doll/model positioned behind the girl?

I don't think so!

Kodak said the image on the film hadn't been manipulated,i.e. what we see was actually there that day.

a reply to: HotblackDesiato

No Kodak didn't establish that there was no doll tuck behind her, also they did not establish there were no leprechauns or fairies. What they did establish is whatever there is in the picture is there, and not added at a later date or tempered with.
Have you studied the picture or story in order to form an opinion or are you here to find any ambiguity in the way a sentence can be taken in order to defer from the real subject....hmmmmmm

Also I there is no shadow from a stake which was claimed to be holding this toy up. If there is a pole or stake then staying in line with the position of the shadows in the pictures should be running off at a 2 o'clock angle. Can you find the shadow? because there isn't one.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
we could all use a dose of your cosmic comedy genius to lighten up with all the doom and gloom going on at the minute.

You told me off for trying to inject a bit of humour into a seemingly humourless situation.I guess you're not British and so don't understand our sense of humour? We take the pi55 out of the way northerners speak and they do the same to us suvverners.Then we meet each other in the pub,have a bit of an arm wrestle followed by a few beers and become the best of friends.
I can only guess at Jim having a typical British sense of humour ( as I have) and as I would do wanted to milk this for all it's worth and get everything he possibly could out of it.It's just one photo and is a bit of harmless fun if that was always his motive.
I take this subject seriously enough even though I joke about it to be willing to travel some 400 miles to Burgh Marsh next year to see for myself what all the fuss is about.No matter how hard I look at the photos I am not able to see the face you can see,I still can see nothing more unusual than the back of the woman shown in the other photo.If I'm proven wrong I'd be quite happy to admit this in public and apologise for this,as I have done in the past.

As a matter of interest have you ever looked through the viewfinder of the type of camera Jim was using that day,and in particular how the manual focus worked in the days before this new fangled auto focus stuff?

originally posted by: Imagewerx
Kodak said the image on the film hadn't been manipulated,i.e. what we see was actually there that day.

originally posted by: liteonit6969

No Kodak didn't establish that there was no doll tuck behind her, also they did not establish there were no leprechauns or fairies. What they did establish is whatever there is in the picture is there, and not added at a later date or tempered with.

Who said anything about the photo being manipulated after it was shot? I certainly didn't.

What I put forth is that there was a model placed directly behind the girls head, probably by means of a stake.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Have you studied the picture or story in order to form an opinion or are you here to find any ambiguity in the way a sentence can be taken in order to defer from the real subject....hmmmmmm

?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Also I there is no shadow from a stake which was claimed to be holding this toy up. If there is a pole or stake then staying in line with the position of the shadows in the pictures should be running off at a 2 o'clock angle. Can you find the shadow? because there isn't one.

A shadow from the model/stake assembly would appear, conveniently, past the photo's edge.

There is a suggestion of the edge of a vertical shadow, but it's somewhat inconclusive.

a reply to: _BoneZ_
Though you've tried to show through lines of light from the sun you don't show the real clincher. Draw a line for the horizon then calculate where the figures feet should be. According to the post with the action figures if you look they have not got the proportions correct. the bottom half is elongated to make it fit. The human body is not that way. Do the line and you'll find the figure has got to be above the horizon. If you look at the previous pics there is no humps or hills for the figure to be standing on to give them the extra height.

Model on a stick would be just as sharply focused as the little girl's face... which it isn't.

It's obviously the back of a more distant person.

a reply to: Imagewerx

You told me off for trying to inject a bit of humour into a seemingly humourless situation.I guess you're not British and so don't understand our sense of humour?

I'm American. Benny Hill, Monty Python, Mr Bean. All very funny. The Holy Grail is probably my favorite.

a reply to: Imagewerx

I apologise totally for taking your comment a bit too serious. Too early in morning and up late with the dodgy leg. Also good post and for taking the time in the discussion, which is the only way to get to the bottom of things. Im from Belfast which is possibly the worst accent in the world. In my head I sound ok, but when hearing it back when making an appearance on some midget porn set it doesn't sound too good .

originally posted by: draknoir2
Model on a stick would be just as sharply focused as the little girl's face... which it isn't.

It's obviously the back of a more distant person.

No it wouldn't.

What is obvious is that he was using a lens/f-stop/film setup that produced a relatively short depth of field; as can be seen by looking at the blades of grass directly in front of, and behind, the girl.

The focus of the "spaceman" is directly in keeping with it being behind her head.