The Solway Firth spaceman a new theory

reply to post by Imagewerx


sorry they must've changed something I thought they used geometry

reply to post by draknoir2

there should be a visible shadow if she is that close and if it was someone on a horse further away but taller there would still be a shadow visible.

reply to post by FireMoon

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.

Where is the source to these claims? I've never seen a quote by Kodak stating they studied three photographs taken in sequential order. Their comment was about the photograph with the person in the background was genuine and not tampered with.

I have found zero evidence of those three back-to-back photographs. The only other photograph made public is the one where she is sitting with her mother to the right. After extensive searching and numerous sources saying the third photograph hasn't been made public, I found the photo below showing the three photographs and the camera used.

If there are two other photographs that would help support his claim, why didn't he make them public over the last 47 years of his life? What would be his purpose of hiding them? He's also never shown them in any television interview.

It's interesting to note, as shown below, the photograph in between the other two seem to show people walking down a street or path. One person looks to be wearing white and appears to have a white hat on. The Solway Firth "spaceman"? Maybe nothing, but I thought interesting nevertheless:

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

I've been looking for THE third photo for quite some time,so have a star for finding A third photo.If there ever was a third photo then it was probably never shown because it would prove it with 100% certainty to not be a spaceman,so removing him and the photo from the top 5 lists of the worlds most unexplainable photos.

I believe that Kodak examined the negatives as well as the prints,and their findings where that nothing had been tampered with in any way,so the images shown on the film were all that at the time the photos were taken.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by draknoir2

 

there should be a visible shadow if she is that close and if it was someone on a horse further away but taller there would still be a shadow visible.

I don't think it is a person on a horse, but simply a person standing up and walking away (I think it's the mother). It seems to me the shadow would be blocked by the girl's head.

The shadows are not that long to begin with (such as the one produced by the girl), and like I said before, foreshortening caused by the perspective of the camera image would make the mother's shadow short enough to be covered by the girl's head.

The foreshortening in that image is clear. Just look at the grassy area we see near the girl compared to the foreshortened grassy area near what I think is the mother. From the camera's perspective, we can see much more "surface" of grassy area near the girl, and a heavily "foreshortened" grassy areas near the horizon and the mother.

The amount of grassy are we see from that perspective is more "squashed" near the horizon and near the figure in question (who I think is the mother) -- and this squashing is the result of foreshortening. The mother's shadow would seem short (from the camera's perspective) due to this.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk...

A few days later, Jim sent the photos off to his locak chemist, who in turn sent them to Kodak and whilst popping into the local Photographic depot (then on West Walls) to collect the developed snaps, the manager remarked to Jim that the photo’s had come out well on the then new Kodak gold film. Here is one of the three :

reply to post by FireMoon

I read that link but I don't see anything supporting a claim that

FireMoon
"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."

Maybe Kodak are at the centre of this "conspiracy" and are actually the ones who altered the photo when they originally processed the film and made the prints from it,just so the whole world would think Jim was mad.

So of course they'd want to cover it up wouldn't they,so to steer the investigation away from them,they offer the fake prize knowing that no one outside of their dark rooms would ever know the REAL truth.

Or more likely it's just Jim's wife Annie with her back to us and she's walking up a steep hill,and the above is just as crazy an invention as all the other "out there" ideas are.

I will never buy the exposure or wife theories they are just plain stupid theories. There is some story I read that at around the same time this same looking space man was seen at a woomera rocket range. Its a strange world we are in and whatever we are seeing isn't the whole picture, theres more things taking place than science can detect.

Imagewerx
Maybe Kodak are at the centre of this "conspiracy" and are actually the ones who altered the photo when they originally processed the film and made the prints from it,just so the whole world would think Jim was mad...

I take Kodak's word for it that the photo isn't altered...but it doesn't need to have been altered for it to be the mother.

That's why I think it is a real unaltered picture of the girl's mother in the background walking away for the camera.

The figure in question is wearing something sleeveless (just like the mother's sleeveless dress in the other picture with the mother), and perhaps wearing some sort of bonnet, or maybe the top of her head is sunlit.

reply to post by brianporter


wasn't it supposedly just the father and his daughter that were there, now not only do we need to explain some space man but also his horse, perhaps the whole space family were having a picnic, if we pull it and push it a bit more we might even manage to create a whole farm...... seriously though, its a fair proposition to explain what has left us all a bit flummoxed, and what if the father was lying, and it is all a set up.. do we know for 100% that it was only that man and his daughter..... hmm good enough theory and well thought out.. not so sure that a polo player and his trusty steed would be galavanting around the hillside... without his stick ... still if its human its capable of anything...

flipflop
...do we know for 100% that it was only that man and his daughter...

Actually we 100% know for sure that it was NOT just the man and his daughter. The man has said that his wife (the girl's mother) was also there, and the wife/mother appears in one of the other pictures taken that day:

FireMoon
reply to post by Ectoplasm8

 

www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk...

A few days later, Jim sent the photos off to his locak chemist, who in turn sent them to Kodak and whilst popping into the local Photographic depot (then on West Walls) to collect the developed snaps, the manager remarked to Jim that the photo’s had come out well on the then new Kodak gold film. Here is one of the three :

That link shows the photos of the girl with the person behind her and the one with her mother sitting to her left. The other supposed sequential photos aren't on that link at all. Neither is a quote by Kodak stating they studied those particular three photos. As I stated above, the comment about the photograph was about the one with the person behind the girl and it being genuine and not tampered with. That one photo being genuine isn't the issue, it's finding these other two photographs you claim are there. That and the identification of this person behind as a "spaceman" nonsense.

I'm searching for facts and not internet tales. You spoke with authority and conviction when it came to the pics. I thought you would have evidence to back up your statement. -Trust me it's there, I've seen it, but they mysteriously disappeared- isn't evidence. I think it's important to challenge and weed-out misinformation in cases like these. You only end up spreading inaccuracies and not dealing in facts. Cases like these demand facts.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

I will never buy the exposure or wife theories they are just plain stupid theories.

Its a really odd photo.

There is some story I read that at around the same time this same looking space man was seen at a woomera rocket range. Its a strange world we are in and whatever we are seeing isn't the whole picture, theres more things taking place than science can detect.

So what we are seeing is some kind of interdimensional space man? What exactly is a "stupid theory"?

Soylent Green Is People

Imagewerx
Maybe Kodak are at the centre of this "conspiracy" and are actually the ones who altered the photo when they originally processed the film and made the prints from it,just so the whole world would think Jim was mad...

I take Kodak's word for it that the photo isn't altered...but it doesn't need to have been altered for it to be the mother.

That's why I think it is a real unaltered picture of the girl's mother in the background walking away for the camera.

The figure in question is wearing something sleeveless (just like the mother's sleeveless dress in the other picture with the mother), and perhaps wearing some sort of bonnet, or maybe the top of her head is sunlit.

edit on 12/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

My first two paragraphs were intended to be nothing more than a joke,as is this......

[humour]It's more likely than any other sane theory that a power surge at Chapel Cross nuclear power station (one of it's cooling towers is visible in the original photo) caused a temporal displacement.This opened up a wormhole with the other end in the gibberish continuum.A member of the indigenous population of pan-dimensional hyper beings who all just happen to dress the same as 1960s middle aged earth women when they expect random journies to a different universe was sucked into it.She was deposited on a man made sea defence on the planet Earth at the exact same time an Earth man was taking a photo of his young daughter.Unfortunately her universe is SLIGHTLY out of phase with ours,rendering her invisible to the naked eye but still visible on light sensitive strips of celluloid.This caused much confusion to people who use conspiracy forums some 50 years later,who to this day still make up amazing stories as to what the "truth" could be.[/humour]

My last paragraph says that I believe it to be nothing more fantastic than Jim's wife walking away from the camera.For those of you who haven't seen my thread from about a year ago on this very same subject,this is a photo I found that shows exactly how steep the side of the sea defence is that fully explains the perspective seen in the original photo.....

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

So what we are seeing is some kind of interdimensional space man? What exactly is a "stupid theory"?

Your telling the story. All im sure on is that its not his wife or a camera exposure issue, they are ridiculous ideas.

In recent years there has been developments in stealth technology to the extent where the idea of making a person disappear in front of a persons eyes only to show the background is no longer a crazy idea. twenty years ago it would of been. If that space looking man is real then we could explain a form of advanced stealth was used to trick their eye sight but it didn't trick the camera.

AthlonSavage

In recent years there has been developments in stealth technology to the extent where the idea of making a person disappear in front of a persons eyes only to show the background is no longer a crazy idea. twenty years ago it would of been.

20 years ago,stealth technology to make a spaceman disappear in front of your eyes would be a crazy idea.
from the OP:

This photo has been around since 1964

some quick math: 2013 - 1964 = 49
its almost 2014, so lets round up to 50 years ago...

If that space looking man is real then we could explain a form of advanced stealth was used to trick their eye sight but it didn't trick the camera.

OK. so is this someone from the future or are you saying there was a space man floating around using advanced stealth technology from 50 years ago?

personally, im going with a picture of the mother taken from an odd angle from a very low tech camera 50 years ago.... as less stupid.

ZetaRediculian
...personally, im going with a picture of the mother taken from an odd angle from a very low tech camera 50 years ago.... as less stupid.

Yes. The fact that the mother is seen wearing a dress with very short sleeves in the other photo (the one with the mother on her hands and knees) AND the "mysterious figure" in the photo in question is also wearing very short sleeves makes me think the mother theory is an extremely plausible one.

I don't understand why people don't find it plausible. The angle of the sunlight would light up the top of her head more than it would the hair near he neck. Plus (as others have pointed out) the viewfinder of the camera gave the photographer a smaller view than the final image, so while his concentration was on the subject of the picture (the little girl) he may not have noticed the mother in the background.

I know I have taken pictures in the past without noticing what was in the background.

That, plus the sleeves of the figure matching the sleeves of the mothers dress, makes me think that the figure very well could be the mother.

Blimey,I wrote all that for nothing.Not even a comment on the photo which very few people (if any) on here will have seen before.

Imagewerx
Blimey,I wrote all that for nothing.Not even a comment on the photo which very few people (if any) on here will have seen before.

Ha Ha! Sorry.

It IS a telling photo, and does help explain the perspective of the "spaceman" image. Like I said in another post, the perspective of the scene form the point of view of the camera (and due to the lay-of-the-land, as you show in your image) explains the foreshortening of the background in the image, and explains how the mother's shadow would be foreshortened, and obscured by the girl's head.