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

reply to post by virraszto


only prob with your theory is shed need to be standing on a box the height of the space person is too high in relation to ground likes its floating.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


It appears to me they are on a downward incline, and the little girl is the focus of the photo. The
mother is higher up and further away and since they are on a slope, she would look taller.

pudytatmmmmm
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?

Can you show us the photos of your seagull please? I must say your theory is about as "out there" as any of the alternative ones are.

AthlonSavage
reply to post by virraszto

 

only prob with your theory is shed need to be standing on a box the height of the space person is too high in relation to ground likes its floating.

If you go back to the first page where I set the scene,you'll see the photo that shows roughly where the photo was taken.There is a dyke or flood defence that looks to be about 2 metres high (and is quite steep) that the girl was sat at the bottom of when the photo was taken.
As for the other photo where the wife is also in shot,I think I've solved the problem of the extra shadows but will wait until I can prove it to reveal my thoughts.

Ok here's something else for you lot to look at.I haven't seen this photo used anywhere else with respect to this subject,but it shows the topography of the ground better than any others I've seen.This was taken while flying over the Solway Firth and is facing more or less due south.



The area I've circled is where I believe the famous photo was taken,based on the video interviews with Jim himself.

I think solving this mystery is not enough...
I flagged this thread and gave you a star....but that can and will not be enough.

The question should not always be what you do on (read for) ATS but also what ATS can do for you ..well.....

I am all for it that you deserve and receive an award. An official ATS case solved award. A mere applause is just not enough for being able to solve this decades old mistery. Kudos...

Maybe the ATS board of owners and investors should start a money award. I've heared that ATS advertisment is making millions if not thousends of millions of dollars because of our commited daily ATS routine.

Anyways...to stay on topic. It has been a long time since I've seen someone solve a world famous mistery as (almost) solid as you did.

I want to be your friend...

reply to post by zatara

Thank you very much zatara,not sure if you're being honest or VERY sarcastic here but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean it.In which case friendship request accepted!

AthlonSavage
reply to post by virraszto

 

only prob with your theory is shed need to be standing on a box the height of the space person is too high in relation to ground likes its floating.

To add to my previous reply to this point.The girl being photographed is just five years old so would have a height of about 40 inches.She is sitting down in THE photo so the distance to her eyes from the ground would be about half that,and as the photo is taken from just below here eye level,the photographer would have only been about 1 foot or maybe just a little bit more above the ground.He was probably lying on his stomach to take the photo.



This is just a simple trick of perspective at work here.Even on flat ground a fully grown adult will (even the shorter than average mother) seem to tower over the young girl when the photo is taken from such a low viewpoint.This effect will be amplified even more if she is walking up a steep slope immediately behind the subject to give the appearance that she is floating as most of us don't get to view the everyday world from this point of view.
No floating spacemen,no levitation and no beekeeping joggers on their way to appear randomly midway through missile launches on the other side of the world here.Just a woman walking away from the camera who happens to be married to the photographer and is wearing a 1960s style dress,and all of this in a photo taken in the 1960s would you believe!

Hi everybody, I would like to add something to the topic. I am from Holland, so my English might not be too good. Sorry for that in advance.

The first thing is that the third shadow could be from a person walking in the direction of the hill and so appearing behind the girl on the next picture the father took. If Templeton said that he was there only with his wife and one child, who's shadow is that anyway?

But on the other hand, why does the figure behind the girl doesn't have any shadow at all? I have asked a photographer what happens with a shadow when the sun is in this position and one is walking up a hill. He said that this would make a shadow longer. There should be at least a part of the shadow of the person behind the girl in the picture.

The only way to solve this mistery ones and for all is to go to that place on the same day and time and weather conditions and try to take a simular picture. I mean a girl on the ground, a person behind her, same angle. I wonder if this hasn't been done already.

reply to post by Minneman

No problem with your English,in fact it's a LOT better than a lot of people who have it as their native tongue.

I'm working on the idea that there were only the three of them there that day.Jim was using a tripod and timer to take the photo that includes the wife picking flowers and that is his shadow we can see in the photo.The length of the shadow still says to me it was taken a LOT later in the day than the other one.

Here's another photo I've found taken VERY close to where the famous one was taken that shows how steep the dyke is that the wife with her back to us was walking up at the time of the photo......



The village in the background is Drumburgh which is due west of this location.The photo is taken from the Geograph website,taken by Johnathon Hacker and is used under CCL.

just to add my cents worth.

Find a picture of the back of a person, if possible going up hill. The web does have such things.

Then superimpose it over the girls photo, sizing it with the figure behind the girl and see where the feet are.

Did this myself, unfortunately no idea how to post the end result, but it seems to prove a person walking up the ground behind the little girl is 100% probable.

reply to post by dowot

They didn't make it very easy to get images onto this version of the board did they? Click on the down arrow symbol 6th from the right near the top of the window,click "upload","select files","upload files" and then copy and paste from the box that says "BBcode for use in post:".
Be interesting to see what you have to add to this topic.

reply to post by Imagewerx


it looks like the space 1999 action figure i had as a kid to me

but thats just my opinion

reply to post by maryhinge

I always make a point to keep an open mind when something like this has only been "solved" unofficially by someone (e.g. me) who wasn't actually there at the time.
But no matter how hard I try and see a spaceman,a bee keeper,a jogger,a seagull or a kids toy transported back in time,I can still only Annie Templeton with her back to us walking away from the camera.

So it's just his wife? I guess Annie was a very masculine looking woman. I mean look at that heavy set torso and broad shoulders. Was she a pre-op tranny maybe?

reply to post by Xaphan

As I've said before,I still don't see this reputed steroid crazed Russian shot putter that other people can see.Annie was slightly shorter than average and certainly wasn't malnourished or skeletal looking that seems to be the accepted norm nowadays for what passes as an attractive looking woman.
Again all I see with my open mind and open eyes is the same women who was kneeling down picking flowers in the other photo,and is now still wearing the same dress and is walking away from us.

Xaphan
So it's just his wife? I guess Annie was a very masculine looking woman. I mean look at that heavy set torso and broad shoulders. Was she a pre-op tranny maybe?

My thinking exactly.

The arms are very masculine looking to be his wife's.

Plus, even accounting for the slight slope, the figure is much too tall. If you look nvery carefully, you can just see what would be the 'spaceman's' right foot, just below the girls hair.

The figure, whoever or whatever it was, has very long legs and appears to be facing away from the camera.

Muscular, tall and wearing what looks like a white NBC suit.

I'd say your theory isn't correct OP.

ETA: The body looks to be facing away from the camera, but on closer inspection it may be that whatever or whoever it was, had turned it's head to face the camera.

The face looks kind of...symian. Like a kind of monkey or something.

Could Britain have been conducting chimera type experiments during the 60's? Ape / Human gene splicing?

I say this because that's what the face (if that's what it is) kind of looks like, well like a monkey but also because of the strange question put to Jim from the MIB...'did you see any strange animals?'

A human / monkey hybrid would count as a strange animal!

So the wife did not tell him O by the way that is me in the picture ?

For him to go through all of this would mean that his wife was not in the picture?

And how could he not remember not seeing her up on the hill after he took the picture?

Still to many questions as to what was going on.

MysterX

Xaphan
So it's just his wife? I guess Annie was a very masculine looking woman. I mean look at that heavy set torso and broad shoulders. Was she a pre-op tranny maybe?

My thinking exactly.

The arms are very masculine looking to be his wife's.

Plus, even accounting for the slight slope, the figure is much too tall. If you look nvery carefully, you can just see what would be the 'spaceman's' right foot, just below the girls hair.

The figure, whoever or whatever it was, has very long legs and appears to be facing away from the camera.

Muscular, tall and wearing what looks like a white NBC suit.

I'd say your theory isn't correct OP.

ETA: The body looks to be facing away from the camera, but on closer inspection it may be that whatever or whoever it was, had turned it's head to face the camera.

The face looks kind of...symian. Like a kind of monkey or something.

Could Britain have been conducting chimera type experiments during the 60's? Ape / Human gene splicing?

I say this because that's what the face (if that's what it is) kind of looks like, well like a monkey but also because of the strange question put to Jim from the MIB...'did you see any strange animals?'

A human / monkey hybrid would count as a strange animal!

edit on 27-10-2013 by MysterX because: added info

The "solved" part of the mystery is correct in MY mind,of this I have no doubt.The only part I haven't yet solved is why so many people still don't get the concept of Occams razor,the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.
I refer you to my post not too far up this page where I explain the perspective that means that this photo was taken from VERY low down (something that the majority of grownups don't normally see).Again I show a photo even more recently that shows it's a bit more than a "slight" slope,it's not far off 45 degrees or 1 in 1,this angle can easily account for the apparent height of the figure in the photo.
I spent some long hours before I first posted this thread looking at both the photos in Photoshop and trying to see things in them that other people are seeing and also to try to pull detail out that no one else has seen yet.I tried every conceivable filter and combination of levels,curves,inversion and everything that can possibly be done to an image,and I still only get an image of the wife walking away from the camera.The so called "foot" you think you can see is just another of the flowers that the girl has been picking.