Solway Firth Spaceman

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
it certainly isn't the mother.

You mean it certainly isn't the mother in your opinion. If you were to use any sort of image processing software to adjust the gamma, contrast, brightness, etc., the details become more apparent.

You can clearly see the collar and sleeve of the dress that the mother is wearing in other images. You can even see the color of the dress is the same as in other images, and it's not the same color as the arm. Which means, no space suit and no spaceman.

Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
I dont buy that, case will remain open sorry.

You mean the case will remain open in your mind so that you can entertain any explanation that doesn't involve the most plausible explanation.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Its not clearly the mans wife., go fool a child with that argument.

Actually, it very clearly is. Especially when you use image processing software to adjust the gamma, contrast and brightness levels to accentuate the details of the image. The collar and sleeve of the dress that the mother is wearing is very visible.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
I have seen plently of over exposed photos, the figure in it isnt due to that.

Then "plenty" isn't enough, or you may not be very versed in photography. You're in the minority here because the rest of us can not only clearly see that it's the mother, we all accept that explanation and have moved on.

You're free to remain one of the very few who wishes to see otherworldly explanations for who the person is standing behind the girl, but trying to sell those explanations to the rest of us will be futile.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
it certainly isn't the mother.

You mean it certainly isn't the mother in your opinion. If you were to use any sort of image processing software to adjust the gamma, contrast, brightness, etc., the details become more apparent.

You can clearly see the collar and sleeve of the dress that the mother is wearing in other images. You can even see the color of the dress is the same as in other images, and it's not the same color as the arm. Which means, no space suit and no spaceman.

Deny ignorance.

I never said it was a spaceman and ofc it's my opinion, as with your theory and analysis which is yours.

Independent of whether there's something to this or not, I think it's a very weak case. What have we got?

- a picture showing two persons
- a statement that there was nobody in the background when the photo was taken?!
- a story about government intervention & mysterious men visiting the photographer
- a magazine that puts the story on the frontpage and makes it go around the world
(...)

That's not really much for discussing a case, IMHO! It's sufficient, though, to create a mystery that nobody could ever debunk 100%. Don't get me wrong, but there's nothing in this case that could actually be checked, verified or proven wrong. And it's been discussed before:

Thread 1
Thread 2
(...)

Unless there's a greater context incl. multiple & independent witness accounts etc., I don't see the point in analyzing this any further ... just my 2 cents!

if it was not for the fact that its been heavily discussed, and actually accurately dissected many times elsewhere, someone would no doubt do all sorts of image based debunking of this showing the correllations of the dress, elbow, hair, shoulders between the pics and so on.
OP's attitude to posters is disappointing too, with ironic accusations of childish arguements from an OP reacting in a frankly hissy and childish manner. very poor show

Originally posted by skalla
if it was not for the fact that its been heavily discussed, and actually accurately dissected many times elsewhere, someone would no doubt do all sorts of image based debunking of this showing the correllations of the dress, elbow, hair, shoulders between the pics and so on.
OP's attitude to posters is disappointing too, with ironic accusations of childish arguements from an OP reacting in a frankly hissy and childish manner. very poor show

In agreement with what jeep3r said, this can never be 100 percent debunked regardless of what it is, however I find it slightly insulting for someone to come along saying "this is that, that is this due to that" etc. etc. and throw their theory around as though it's fact, it isn't fact.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


if this pic was not presented with the spaceman line, there would be no fuss imo.. the story around it is just gravy. suggestion plays a big role as do people's wishes for confirmation of other life and so on. critical examination, for me, shows it's the wife facing away from the camera and the dress, straps and so on are there for all to see. it's a comedy 1960's spaceman at best in magic eye fashion... there are many far more mysterious photos out there that deserve the attention and analysis.

the op would have been better served commenting on the far superior thread here by a photographer that was posted maybe 4 or 5 months ago

Something else that bothers me a little about this particular case is that a company called "Kodak" has been mentioned very, very often ...

The armchair-conspiracist in me suspects a big indirect outcome from a story like that in terms of marketing (word of mouth) for that particular company. Perhaps we need to search their archives for more details!?

OK, just kiddin' ... let's direct our attention to those cases that involve more tangible indicators and evidence!

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

Hes certainly doing a pose for the camera, as if he really wants to present well in the photograph with girl. He seems taller than he should be for where he is standing. Mabey behind the girl is a rock hes standing on, or mabey he has real long legs. Then mabey hes real alien in a anti gravity suit and hes floating off the ground.

Well it appears that the girl is sitting at the bottom of a hill and he is standing at the higher elevation of the hill which would explain why he looks so tall...

Apologies if my take has appeared already in the 'numerous other threads' on this matter here...

1) Yes, no photo-shopping or digital manipulation. This photo was widely published decades before such things were possible.
2) I thought Jenny Randles (or some other investigator) had ascertained that it was a clever practical joke played by the guys in the photo lab who knew the original photographer pretty well.
3) Hey, you know folks, it could be a HOAX. Someone dressing up like that and posing in the background.

Regards from Mrs Chicken

The photographer claims that no one else was around when the picture was taken, but this photo taken just before the 'spaceman' photo appears to show the shadow of another individual to the left of the girl, so either he was lying or didn't notice:

Originally posted by strelok72
The photographer claims that no one else was around when the picture was taken, but this photo taken just before the 'spaceman' photo appears to show the shadow of another individual to the left of the girl, so either he was lying or didn't notice:

Do you know what a tree is?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Sorry i dont buy it, you can give me all the techo babble you want i have seen plenty of over exposed photographs in my life and dont buy any of the nonsense.

Having another picture with mother in frame means nothing, if you listen to the guy interview who took photo it appears him and his family were no strangers to visiting the marsh, that photo could of easily been taken on numerous other trips.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Sorry i dont buy it, you can give me all the techo babble you want i have seen plenty of over exposed photographs in my life and dont buy any of the nonsense.

Having another picture with mother in frame means nothing, if you listen to the guy interview who took photo it appears him and his family were no strangers to visiting the marsh, that photo could of easily been taken on numerous other trips.

edit on 26-4-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

So let's get a rundown of what your position is...

• Despite a photo existing of the same day showing an overexposed wife resulting in pale white skin and dress, you deny overexposure being a factor.

• You choose to believe the person making the claims with nothing other than his word...over the facts presented.

• You take offense and exception with rational and well thought out real-world explanations backed by collaborating proof (You can analyze the photo yourself and play with gamma correction/levels and use your own eyes).

• You think it is more likely that an alien or spaceman nobody saw, showed up randomly in a field out in the country to pose for a photo with an unimportant family.

Yeah, you win. Obviously, you have facts and rationality on your side. I'd like to sell you my invisible UFO. Its parked out on the driveway. I'll wash it for $20 extra.

I will admit that I have always liked this photo and the story behind it ever since I saw it in a book about the "unexplained" as a child; I was therefore initially rather hostile towards the wife theory as it provided a mundane explanation to something I had always felt was other-worldly!

Upon examining the evidence however I realised that this explanation is by far the most likely one, and no matter how much I may want to believe otherwise to deny so would be denying reality.

It would appear that not everyone is prepared to accept this truth however, and sadly may even resort to insulting those who threaten to expose what they must know is a fantasy.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

And please debunkers do us all a favour and forget the arguments of photoshopping and CGI this is the 1960s remember.

Why do you think you need Photoshop?

Do you really believe in the jackalope?

It's just about as easy to fake a film photo. It doesn't take a computer.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Do you know what a tree is?

Yes. Furthermore, I can tell the difference between the shadow cast by a tree and the shadow cast by a person. Can you?

I believe it is a person in the shot and in the link bellow they show the area and how it is that the person looks so tall .

One other thing which lends to a possible hoax is that if the above is correct, the point of standing on the lip at a pronounced height and a slightly odd angle, but cover most of the body behind the girls head would lend to creating a very freaky tall being but not betray much of the “Spaceman’s” torso to aid identification.

Later on, Jim was at it again. This time he photographed another alleged UFO picture out on the marsh, which the Cumberland News ran as a story with the headline entitled “Another marsh mystery!”. By this point Jim is becoming something of a George Adamski with his uncanny ability to run into unexplained phenomena.
Investigations into the Solway Spaceman Photo

Originally posted by strelok72

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Do you know what a tree is?

Yes. Furthermore, I can tell the difference between the shadow cast by a tree and the shadow cast by a person. Can you?

Yeah but not all shadows look the same and can be distorted depending on where the sun is, you missed my point.

Originally posted by gortex
I believe it is a person in the shot and in the link bellow they show the area and how it is that the person looks so tall .

One other thing which lends to a possible hoax is that if the above is correct, the point of standing on the lip at a pronounced height and a slightly odd angle, but cover most of the body behind the girls head would lend to creating a very freaky tall being but not betray much of the “Spaceman’s” torso to aid identification.

Later on, Jim was at it again. This time he photographed another alleged UFO picture out on the marsh, which the Cumberland News ran as a story with the headline entitled “Another marsh mystery!”. By this point Jim is becoming something of a George Adamski with his uncanny ability to run into unexplained phenomena.
Investigations into the Solway Spaceman Photo

Ok, with that kind of information it does kind of put a slant on the story and I would also point out (as mentioned earlier) to Kodak being mentioned a lot.

As I said earlier, I never thought it was a spaceman and although it can't be proved either way what it is, it would seem to me to be some kind of hoax.