The Solway Firth spaceman-SOLVED!!!!!!

In this photo (that you posted) There are four 'people' in the picture. 1. The person taking the picture. 2. The mother laying in the grass. 3. The daughter. And 4. The shadow to the left of the daughter.

You can tell that the shadow belongs to someone/something outside of the picture view due to the angle of the daughter's shadow and the absence of the photographers shadow.

reply to post by Imagewerx


jumping in late here....but you nailed it.

if you put the image in photoshop and adjust the gamma, and increase saturation a touch on the "spacesuit", you can see that there is a lady with a blouse/dress that has short sleeves. Her arm is up on her hip, explaining why it seemed to bend backwards on the "alien". She likely is wearing some small hat pinned into her hair.


Not often you find a reasonable debunking. Nice job

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

if you put the image in photoshop and adjust the gamma, and increase saturation a touch on the "spacesuit", you can see that there is a lady with a blouse/dress that has short sleeves.


Not often you find a reasonable debunking. Nice job

Care to show proof of your workings? A few have already put it through photoshop and still cannot get a female image.
Also look above there may have been more people present.
Nice try hanging it on the first hook so to speak.

Look at the figures stance in relation to the horizon. The position of the torso, head and arms would suggest the figure is almost standing on the horizon of this image ? Is that possible, what angle is the slope the girl is sitting on ? At i guess i would say the figure is standing around 3/4m behind the girl. Imagine how tall this would make him ? 8/9 ft ???

Just my 2 pence worth.

What I understand is that he took 3 photos one after the other of the girl. Second one had the figure and rest didn't so why was the figure not in the other ones? My wife has a habit of taking same photos of something two or three times like that. So I don't think your explanation is right in this case.

That thing isn't a believable figure of a human whatsoever to me, much less a woman. That's one gigantic torso.
Even if it is-- by some freak of photographic sorcery-- a distorted image of the girl's mom with male pecs on her back, one must wonder how her father didn't know she was there when he took the picture.

Doing a search on tineye.com, I found this image from 2008 which is slightly better quality perhaps. It appears to have writing on the spacemans shirt. Obviously this is not definitive but it does look as if it is writing of some kind. Maybe that is just a trick of the light?

scotsdavy1
What I understand is that he took 3 photos one after the other of the girl. Second one had the figure and rest didn't so why was the figure not in the other ones? My wife has a habit of taking same photos of something two or three times like that. So I don't think your explanation is right in this case.

It's because they were picking flowers - note the bunch of flowers in the girls hand, and in the other photo you can see the wife picking the flowers - she just happened to stand up while he took 1 photo and bent down for the other 2 and was hidden behind the girl for those 2.

She even looks to have her hand on her lower back as older people do when they've just stood up.

Pretty conclusive and obvious I'd say, amazing how the obvious can escape you when, as the OP stated, people tend to look at the photo after reading the headline.

The image



shows NOTHING WHATSOEVER "mysterious" or odd, it simply shows a person behind the girl. PERIOD.

Whether one says "there was nothing there" or whatever the photo taker subjectively assumes is entirely irrelevant.

The most logical explanation is also the most simple:

A) He photographed the girl, person was behind the girl and he didn't see it due to the angle the pic was taken...or something else that his wife went through the image at the moment he shot the pic..and the guy SIMPLY did not notice it.

B) Or..the entire thing is a simple hoax.

A is of course more likely. The entire thing ONLY becomes a mystery due to the stupidity (sorry!) of people who for some reason want to disregard the most likely explanation (wife/person behind kid) and for some reason see it more logical there must be a "spaceman" and (for some reason) find it extremely unlikely that the wife or another person was behind the kid.

Which is more likely?

a) It's a spaceman who materialized out of nothing..
b) It's a woman from behind with dark hair and small cap/hat on


Seriously...

Amazing, and disappointing that this is still giving people cause for concern.

The only argument should be whether it's an 'Action Man' or 'GI Joe'.

Action Man.



GI Joe.



My money would have been on GI Joe, but given that it would be difficult to acquire one in the Solway Firth at the time (unless the Father / Mother was working in the US at the time) my money goes on the Action Man.

ShinyDragonfly

In this photo (that you posted) There are four 'people' in the picture. 1. The person taking the picture. 2. The mother laying in the grass. 3. The daughter. And 4. The shadow to the left of the daughter.

You can tell that the shadow belongs to someone/something outside of the picture view due to the angle of the daughter's shadow and the absence of the photographers shadow.

In all honesty in all the times I've looked at this photo,I've never paid any attention or given any relevance to the shadows before now.
You do have a point-to a certain extent.The problem I have is that this is an afternoon in May,when we still have a LOT of daylight left and the sun will still be high enough in the sky to not cast very long shadows like we can see in that photo.To cast a shadow that long,it would have to be mid to late evening,say about 7 o'clock.And it's just too big to have been made by a light source over 90 million miles away,especially from a girl that short AND that close to the ground because she's crouching down.
What shadow there is in the original photo showing the alleged spaceman looks more realistic,the photo was taken facing north west as we can see the towers of Chapel Cross power station in Scotland over the girls right shoulder.The light source here was behind the photographer (where it should be anyway for well lit photos) and a bit to his left.
The other photo (yours) which we assume was taken very soon before or after the more famous one has the light source this time in front of the camera and to the left.For this to happen Jim would have had to have turned round and be facing the road and house by the junction which would have been visible in the photo.Sorry but it's too late at night over here and my brain is fried from a very busy day,so I can't even start to work out now where the sun should be in all the photos.In fact it HAS to be facing the same direction as the marshes are all flat apart from the one dyke that forms the sea defences,this is what we're seeing in both of these photos.
I tell a lie,I've just looked at the Google earth images again and there is a slope down from the road which faces southwest,but it's a much sharper slope and although they'de be low down and wouldn't be able to see the road itself from there,we should still be able to see the road signs and edge of road danger markers.
I would say that both photos were taken in the same place (or very nearly).The shadows in the one showing the wife bent down are wrong,the one in the photo of the girl with the wife walking away from us behind the girl (yes I'm sticking this theory now!) is right going from the shadows on the Google images which also face north.

reply to post by qmantoo

Sorry but I don't see a spaceman or a shirt or any type of writing.I can see a photo with unusually bad digitisation artefacts that can occur when an old fashioned analogue photo is scanned at a low resolution and saved with more compression than it really needs.
As I said right back at the beginning,we can tweak away at it in Photoshop until the cows come home,but all we'll be enhancing will be more of the above.There is a nice enhanced version that's been cleaned up and and had the original washed out colours made more saturated.......
ufodigest.com...
Still no spacesuit I'm afraid.

This is my first post and I just had to comment on this.

I saw this picture in a programme on the National Geographic channel and ended up here.

I agree with the OP, but I notice so many people don't take much into consideration when analysing something.

In this case things like:

1) The photograph is reasonably old now, maybe modern cameras can be compared to the human eye...but back then it could not. Cameras need MORE light to accurately process images whilst the human eye does not. This photo was taken on a sunny day meaning there was a chance certain things in the image became overexposed. In summary...when something looks strange in a photo it doesn't mean it would look strange if one was ACTUALLY there looking at it with the naked eye.

2) All those calling the figure in the background a "spaceman" need to get their brains in check. The figure in the background is nothing but an OBSCURE figure....as in it is UNCLEAR.

3) This is related to No. 2. The idea that this is the same figure seen in the Blue Streak missile project is also ludicrous...because as I said...the figure is unclear.

4) Occam's razor. Templeton said himself that nobody else was there other than himself and his family. He also didn't see any anomalies when he was taking the photos either...so with that premise the figure in the picture is most likely someone who was with him.

5) What the hell has this got to do with UFOs or Aliens? Apart from the obviously inserted story of MIB, who apparently tried to get him to keep his mouth. Even though A) the figure wasn't clearly an alien, B) Templeton had already spoken to the media about it so telling him to hush was pointless and 3) apparently Templeton was willing to get into a car with two strangers who behaved oddly and didn't show any ID.

and

6) Have a look at the photo on the right and tell me it isn't the female in the other photo:



(Have a closer look here).

As you can see the female in blue is "washed out" in the other picture too.



Also on a final note, the female in blue or the mysterious "fourth" person (i.e. the shadow on the left) in the picture above might actually be Templeton's OTHER daughter. I do suspect though, that the shadow figure is actually his wife and the female in blue his other daughter.

According to this Wiki he took his wife and TWO daughters to Burgh Marsh.

reply to post by alexmann

Ok glad to see this topic is still very much alive and is generating enough interest still to get people to join up just to comment on it,so thanks VERY much for your input Alex.
I have never heard any other references to another daughter,so I would guess that as it's a wiki entry which can of course be added to by anyone irrespective of the accuracy of any information contained within it.He (Jim) has on numerous occasions said that just the three of them were there that day,so this is what I'll be working with from now on.
I've been looking at the direction of the shadows in the two photos and have worked it out now my brain has cooled down a bit and will show my findings in the next day or so.
Why aliens or spacemen you ask Alex? Because it's a conspiracy website and people who believe in Nibiru,Bigfoot,mermaids and income tax refunds are desperately clutching at straws for something to show the world that they're not as mad as people think they are.

I actually quite like conspiracy theories and have always been interested in them, so I'll probably stick around.

However, I hardly believe any of them.

It's intriguing how you can find such intelligent people with degrees and high IQs etc and still believe in far out conspiracy theories....a lot of these people WANT to believe in conspiracy theories rather than come to a conclusion logically.

When it comes to the paranormal or Ufology one particular saying comes to mind.

"You don't believe what you see, you see what you believe".

People, I have taken MANY pictures of this "space man" in the Solway Firth photo. MANY... And I have them now to prove it. I can post them if anyone wants them too. Quite simply, it's a bird (seagull) taking off and its' wings are on the downward flap when they are stroking their wings the hardest to get off the ground... Why is this such a mystery to everyone?

The space is a real object in photo because under his arm u see shadow just like under the girls arm on same side you see shadow.

I have never been convinced by any argument its over exposure of the mum or a seagull. I really don't know what the that space looking dude is doing in the picture.

reply to post by pudytatmmmmm


This we must see! It doesn't resemble any bird I know of.

As soon as I put it through photoshop I could immediately see the lady standing
behind the girl. After just a few adjustments, the lady stands out quite well.

She has a shawl or it's her collar on her dress , and the back of her head is shadowed by the sun.



And smaller version of the whole photo.