It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
5. The Solway Firth Spaceman
This particular story is mired in conspiracy and has the public divided. Me, i'll post it here for your discernment because its steeped in ATS philosophy.....strip it and lets get to the bottom of it once and for all. "The GUT" might find this story interesting as well because the M.I.B feature therein.
Bloody good story nonetheless......
On May 24th, 1964, Jim Templeton, a fireman from Carlisle in North England, snapped some pictures of his young daughter out to the marches overlooking the Solway Firth. Although it was an uneventful outing, Templeton and his family noticed an odd "aura" to the area there - as if there was an electric charge in the air before a storm.
No storm came, but Templeton did observe that some nearby cows seems overly upset and spooked. A few days later, after the film was developed, Templeton was shocked to discover that a strange man appeared in one of the photos of his daughter even though they had been alone on the marshes. The man appeared to be wearing a space suit like an astronaut! Kodak offered a reward for anyone able to give a rational explanation for the space man picture, but no one was able to. Experts concluded that the picture was not the result of a double exposure, nor was it the result of tampering with the negative.
The mystery didn't end there.
Templeton reported that shortly after the picture became public, he was harassed by men in dark suits who asked him odd questions about the weather conditions on the marsh, bird behaviors, and what Templeton was doing out there on the first place. They then tried to make him admit that he had faked the picture and, when Templeton refused to, they became angry and left.
Cumberlandspaceman.co.uk
originally posted by: fiverx313
i think that's his wife, seen from behind, overexposed.
www.bbc.com...
originally posted by: fiverx313
i think that's his wife, seen from behind, overexposed.
www.bbc.com...
originally posted by: AdKiller
a reply to: mblahnikluver
It was his wife, the other photos prove without a doubt that he knew it was his wife.
It amazes me when I see a mindset such as yours. I instinctively wonder why? Do MIB's actually wear, white?
originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: fiverx313
That's exactly what it was and this fraudster knew it.
In his original statement he swore he and his daughter were alone on the hillside.
When another photo, with his wife shown in it, from the same set came to light he swore she was behind him when the photo was taken.
It's obvious from the arm position it's a photo of someone's back and when you see the photo
of the wife it becomes apparent that the "spacesuit" is her sleeveless dress.
This photo had traction for decades, I still remember being captivated by it as a boy 35 years ago.
Can you produce this photo?
When another photo, with his wife shown in it, from the same set came to light he swore she was behind him when the photo was taken.
spacemancentral.com...
The photograph was then sent by the Cumberland News team ‘down under’ following a request and was published in Australian newspapers, soon after. The Australians contacted Jim directly and requested a copy of the negative of the picture.
Shortly after this, Jim reported that a Technician from the ‘Blue Streak missile project’ in Australia contacted him and told him they had spotted similar looking figures, wandering around the launchpad, during an aborted countdown on May 23rd (the same day).
This other source says that's her older sister in the other photo instead of the wife. Whoever it is, it's easy enough to believe the "spaceman" is just a person facing away from the camera, I don't know what's so hard to accept about that.
originally posted by: vlawde
Here's some more analysis with other photos taken the same day showing the wife
debunkedmyth.blogspot.com...
"3. Elizabeth and her older sister, same morning and place. © James P. Templeton, courtesy of Dave Armitage."
In the last few years, several researchers have graphically demonstrated the now accepted conclusion to this photograph, i.e., that it just shows a normal person, moving behind the child that escaped the attention of the cameraman, who was preoccupied with taking the picture. Motion and wrong focus produced the blurred, spurious image
Its not hard at all, that is exactly what we see. Its the "Who" "What" "Where" and "Why", of this person that is the puzzle.
Whoever it is, it's easy enough to believe it's just a person facing away from the camera, I don't know what's so hard to accept about that.