The Solway Firth spaceman a new theory

So, maybe he's telling the truth about not seeing his wife in the frame due to the viewfinder hiding her, but she still could have appeared in the photo. Dr. David Clarke apparently is cited for that explanation, and he's looked into it more than I have, but I don't see any reason to disagree with him about that.

That would be Clarke the self confessed hoaxer? Clarke is a busted flush as far as "objective" analysis goes.

reply to post by FireMoon

For once I agree with you, that he's not a reliable source, which is why I said I don't find a reason to disagree with him about this particular analysis.

But in other cases I do find reasons to disagree with him, and you, though I found your hypothesis about the dead firefighter interesting; that's actually one I hadn't heard before. The photographer said he's received thousands of letters of possible explanations over the years, but I wonder if he's heard that one.

reply to post by brianporter


You are absolutely right,
his wife was riding away on a horse.
Could have been an Ostridge that escaped from the zoo though.

S&F

Well since his view through the camera would have been like this IT'S HIS WIFE!!!

Wildmanimal
reply to post by brianporter

 

You are absolutely right,
his wife was riding away on a horse.
Could have been an Ostridge that escaped from the zoo though.

S&F

edit on 20-12-2013 by Wildmanimal because: correction

Or, more likely, it's the wife/mother simply walking away.

His wife must do body building

i think the photographer might have noticed a man on a horse in the background.

AthlonSavage
His wife must do body building

ite
I think the "spacemans" upper half looks big because the wind is blowing it, it must have been windy because look at the little girls hair.
Another problem I have is with the head, some people say its the mum and shes wearing a headscarf, but i just dont see it, the top of the head is white and then goes down to a dark colour, and theres white each side of the dark area at the front. I cant for the life of me work out what that headware is.
And whats with the spaceman leaning to one side, why would you do that? I actually think the OP s horse theory is one of the most plausable ive heard. Cant understand why the dad wouldnt notice a massive horse in the backround though.

I've had a thought or three on this subject as well.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I say again that the apparent height of the wife is because the photo was taken from a VERY low position of just below the girl's eyes,so probably about 18 inches off the ground.This is fact and not just opinion as can be seen by looking at the photo.No trickery involved,just the laws of perspective making themselves known in no uncertain terms.

Edit.........looking at the photo again,it was taken from the level of the girl's chin,so even lower than I said before.The lower the viewpoint,the taller things appear to be.

reply to post by brianporter

respect for the effort. love this photo very weird. I don't think the "riding helmet and hair" fit and the riding crop is a stretch. the clothing looks skin tight and the thing on the "head" comes down around the sides, at times it appears that you are looking face to face but then realize the right arm is bent at the elbow. I can't imagine someone would actually think they could pull off staging this kind of thing. I mean couldn't you do something a little more intelligible or direct like a saucer?

p.s. where is the shadow?

reply to post by Imagewerx

where is the shadow? you can see the girl's shadow on the grass, there would have be at least a bit of a shadow from something that tall even if it was someone standing there closer then definitely you'd see a shadow.

_BoneZ_

samuel1990
This was an entire field that had nothing but hills, grass, a father and a daughter.

You left out mother/wife from that sentence, as well as a fourth person:

There's also another shadow to the right of the girl (at left in image), indicating four people were present: the father/photographer, mother, daughter, unknown shadow.

Here are some color-enhanced images:

No matter how many ways the colors are enhanced, the person in the background is still wearing a dress with their back facing the camera. It may not even be the mother. It could be the fourth unknown person. But it's most-definitely a woman with a dress.

No spaceman here.

edit on 18-12-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp

She must have some extremely long legs then.

Seems to live up to the stereotypical spaceman of the time in the 50's and 60's. The assumption that a space alien would have to wear some sort of space suit and helmet on Earth as humans would have to do on a distant planet. I guess they all shrunk, stripped down, turned grey, and grew gigantic heads in the next 10 years?

I'm surprised this still gets serious consideration for being alien by today's standards of the stereotypical "grey". But, it lives on.

reply to post by Violater1


Excellent enhancement....you can clearly see the person (obviously Female) is wearing a typical late 50s early 60s sleeveless blouse/skirt, with bare arms. Not to mention you can see the hair.
It actually looks more like the daughters friend, who also had a blue sleeveless blouse and short blond hair....In fact, I would bet it is the other young girl, standing 10 or so feet (maybe more) behind the subject, looking across the valley from the hill. The infinity? perspective of the camera changes the background distance, does it not experts?

Either way...100% proved, it is either the other little girl or the mother...it is clearly a 1950/60s human.

Definitely NOT a spaceman wearing a blue sleeveless blouse and with blond hair.

Well done Bonez.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

where is the shadow? you can see the girl's shadow on the grass, there would have be at least a bit of a shadow from something that tall even if it was someone standing there closer then definitely you'd see a shadow.

Judging by the length of the girl's shadow the sun is quite high in the sky (sometime near mid day),so is quite short.Logic tells us the wife's shadow would also be short,so is hidden by the girl's head.

reply to post by Imagewerx


you don't use logic when determining shadows in a photograph. Especially if it is her mother standing closer you would definitely see a shadow even with the high angle of the sun

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

you don't use logic when determining shadows in a photograph. Especially if it is her mother standing closer you would definitely see a shadow even with the high angle of the sun

Why not,what else would you use? At mid day north of the equator all shadows point north,therefore if it is mid day and we can see one shadow,it must be pointing north.Or if it is any other time of day they will all point west or east of north.The girl's shadow is short and to the upper right of the photo,the mother's will be the same and will be hidden by the girl's head,what it not logical about that?

FireMoon
Here we go again, yet another person believing they have discovered something that Kodak couldn't. People do realise that one of the things that Kodak could not explain was that this photo was one of three prints and that the three frames must have been taken almost sequentially? You see the original 3 photos, which mysteriously seem to have vanished from online if someone can provide a genuine link please do, show that the girl's hair and the tiny details are almost exactly the same in each print.

if the the photo with the object in it was taken totally out of context then yes, it would be easy to come up with any number of possibly explanations and you don't think Kodak thought of that when they originally offered the prize for a solution?

In other words, as far as Kodak were concerned, the photo had not been faked and manipulated and yet, the photos either side of this one on the film, show nothing. That is, given how little the girls hair has moved between print 1 and 3, they could not work out how anyone or anything could make it across the background without appearing in all three photos. That is partly why initially, Kodak were convinced they would find evidence of the negative of this single frame having being tampered with.

Of course the actual evidence as it really is, does nothing to support the ever more labyrinthine explanations that people have come up with so i guess, it's no surprise people neglect to reference them when they deign to go public with their "explanation".

Myself, the only figure I believe it truly looks like and this could just be, a lot more than coincidence, is that of a firefighter from the period equipped to deal with aviation fuels and working at somewhere such as a Nuclear Power plant.

icpbardmfa.files.wordpress.com...

Now, if you really know your paranormal stuff and are not some dilettante who thinks they can dip in and out of the field to "solve things in 5 minutes" all those poor suckers who have spent decades trying to do you would know this. Two of the best photographs of "ghosts" are those of dead airmen appearing weeks after they died in a photograph. That is, for some reason , high stress situations and jobs, seem to lend themselves to strange events. Meaning that, it could well be that, we as humans when in an heightened emotional state might well be able to have some effect on technology beyond that we as yet, understand.

So Templeton's job was? A fireman and directly behind the girls head on the horizon is what? Oh yes, a Nuclear Power Station. In other words jobs involving high stress and at times, the sudden loss of a work comrade because of the nature of the work. I wouldn't be that surprised to learn that, a fireman working at the nuclear station had died or been seriously hurt in some accident that was never reported to the public. So, if you're workings for the MOD and this in the wake of accident that has been recently hushed up this photo appears on your desk, of what looks like it could be someone in fire fighting gear specific to a nuclear power station you might well think..... "Errrkkk, we really don't need this and the guy who took it knows about said accident" then, the "Spaceman" thesis provides a perfect cover for not directing anyone's attentions to an accident you don't want to talk about at all. It's not beyond possibility Templeton knew of the accident and himself, was sworn to secrecy and has kept that secret to this day. That, a combination of Templeton's emotional state and the, maybe even subconscious realisation that the nuclear plant was directly behind the girl, caused that image to appear? The reason it is not that clear is because Jim himself didn't even realise he was doing it.

As mad as that might sound, that actually would tick all the boxes if and I admit it's a huge if, there's some "accident" Jim knew of we, to this day, still are unaware of and a colleague was injured or killed during it.

LOL


Or it's a woman in a dress as cleared up just 2 posts above yours.

gort51
Excellent enhancement....you can clearly see the person (obviously Female) is wearing a typical late 50s early 60s sleeveless blouse/skirt, with bare arms. Well done Bonez.

They're not my enhancements. Those were pulled from previous threads on this topic where other ATS members have done the enhancements.

But yes, it's very clearly obvious that it is an adult female wearing a sleeveless dress. No space suit. No space person. It doesn't matter if the photographer claims he didn't see her standing in the background or not. His focus wasn't anywhere but the center of the photograph where his daughter was.

Not to mention, viewfinders in those days were not always 100% of the size of the photograph. If the viewfinder was smaller than what the lens captures, then the wife/mother would have been completely obscured by the daughter and the smaller viewfinder.

Imagewerx

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

you don't use logic when determining shadows in a photograph. Especially if it is her mother standing closer you would definitely see a shadow even with the high angle of the sun

Why not,what else would you use? At mid day north of the equator all shadows point north,therefore if it is mid day and we can see one shadow,it must be pointing north.Or if it is any other time of day they will all point west or east of north.The girl's shadow is short and to the upper right of the photo,the mother's will be the same and will be hidden by the girl's head,what it not logical about that?

Plus, there would be the effect of foreshortening.

The visible length of the mother's shadow would be shortened by "foreshortening", considering the angle we are viewing the girl and the mother, and with the mother being in the distance. Estimating what direction and length the mother's shadow would appear from the point of view of the camera lens, I can easily imagine that the mother's shadow could be covered by the girl.

Just look at the grassy area we see near the girl compared to the foreshortened grassy area near what I think is the mother. We can see much more "surface length" of grassy area near the girl, and much more "foreshortened grassy areas" near near the horizon and the mother.