The Solway Firth spaceman a new theory

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Thank you.It's not necessarily EXACTLY where the original photo was taken (although it could be),but it's definitely within about 15 or 20 metres of where it was taken.It was taken from this site which has a photo of just about every possible part of the UK on it.....

www.geograph.org.uk.../

Here's another one showing the WW2 bomber practice concrete arrow Jim mentions in the interviews and also where I believe the photo to have been taken.....

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


the girl's shadow is that way because she is sitting down if the mother was standing closer the shadow would be even more apparent.

Soylent Green Is People


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.

People don't find it plausible because....well, it looks like a space man! Use all the common sense you want but it STILL looks more like a space man than the mother. It couldn't possibly be the mother who happened to be there, it has to be a stealth space man from the future.

I remember when this story reappeared on ATS last year or so (or early this year...whatever).

There were original articles and interviews linked to the story and what happened etc.

I am fairly certain, that in the interviews with the father, he clearly stated that they were on their "Picnic" or whatever, and there was Another young girl with them, either the daughters friend or cousin or something.

As the photo shows, the healthy, well fed, young female bending down while kneeling (a very young girl thing to do), could not be the Mother, not to mention the arm proportions are similar to the daughter...and a very classic bob 1960s style girls haircut.

There are also photos of the Mother in various articles, and she looks your typical late 30s-40s married housewife, of the time, with darker shoulder length, wavy hair, a bit chunky......not like the girl in the blue dress.

The authors story also changed as he said it was only him and his wife and daughter, but in other interviews, im sure he said he was there with his daughter cousin/friend and another gentleman.

Perhaps others more interested can search the ATS files, as far as Im concerned, the mystery (Hoax??) was solved ages ago.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

the girl's shadow is that way because she is sitting down if the mother was standing closer the shadow would be even more apparent.

And the mother's shadow would be heavily foreshortened because of the perspective.

Like I said, just look at the ground near the girl, then look at the ground near the horizon and the "figure". You can see much more of the "top" of the grass near the girl, but as you get out closer to the horizon, you are looking at the ground more edge-on.

The amount of surface grass you see out there near the figure is more compacted, thus a shadow would also be compacted/foreshortened.

Soylent Green Is People

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

the girl's shadow is that way because she is sitting down if the mother was standing closer the shadow would be even more apparent.

And the mother's shadow would be heavily foreshortened because of the perspective.

Like I said, just look at the ground near the girl, then look at the ground near the horizon and the "figure". You can see much more of the "top" of the grass near the girl, but as you get out closer to the horizon, you are looking at the ground more edge-on.

The amount of surface grass you see out there near the figure is more compacted, thus a shadow would also be compacted/foreshortened.

gaging where the hips would be if that was her mom it would make her much closer to the little girl and you would definitely see her shadow. Sure geometry might come in handy at this point but just trying to match up the height of the mom's waistline to where she would have to be standing in relation to the girl brings about some strange measurements. If the mom is standing further away from the girl in order to match the scale of the shoulders of the mom, she would have to have legs about two meters tall. And if she is closer then her upper body is too small to make sense. If she is sitting on a horse further away I say you would still see some part of a shadow even foreshortened. look how long this shadow is www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk...

I like the rider on horseback theory. He fits perfectly. Well done OP.

However I prefer to believe in the huge white unknown Klaatu-like figure. He's like Nessie, or big phantom cats, and should never be found.

gort51

I am fairly certain, that in the interviews with the father, he clearly stated that they were on their "Picnic" or whatever, and there was Another young girl with them, either the daughters friend or cousin or something.

The authors story also changed as he said it was only him and his wife and daughter, but in other interviews, im sure he said he was there with his daughter cousin/friend and another gentleman.

No interview with the father that I've ever seen has mentioned anyone other than himself,his wife and his daughter as being present that day.He states that in no uncertain terms,and also states that the only other people present on the marsh that day (although some distance away) were a couple of old ladies who spent the whole time sitting in their car.
The other people are pure fiction.These are either a product of people trying to recall the story from memory without doing any actual research and mixing them up with something else,or they invent them so it appears they're cleverer than any other people who don't have the "full" story.

Imagewerx
No interview with the father that I've ever seen has mentioned anyone other than himself,his wife and his daughter as being present that day.

Who needs an interview when we have photographic evidence of a 4th person:

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

Imagewerx
The other people are pure fiction.

How do you explain the shadow of what appears to be a 4th person then?

Just because we see a shadow,why does it have to be a person? There are plenty of other non-human shadow forming objects on the marshes,both inanimate like these signs,and cattle that he says were there that day....


If you notice the shadow has moved round by about 90 deg between those two photos,meaning the position where the photo was taken from has changed.Also it's got quite a bit longer meaning the sun is a lot lower in the sky so it was taken some time (hours) later,and not immediately after the original as is claimed.

Would you not agree that it's a very strange shaped shadow for a person if the person is standing to the middle left of the photo,unless of course their neck is about half a metre long?

Imagewerx
Would you not agree that it's a very strange shaped shadow for a person if the person is standing to the middle left of the photo,unless of course their neck is about half a metre long?

No I don't agree it's strange. It looks like a human shadow to me with shoulders and a head above it. Now can I say with 100% certainty it's human? No, but I can say it is approximately human in shape.

You're making the same arguments that moon landing hoax theorists make about distorted shadows, who don't seem to realize that if terrain is not flat (and it almost never is), shadows can be distorted, and the longer the shadow, the greater the possible distortion because it can cover more terrain. All it takes to stretch out the shadow of a head and neck is a little unevenness of the terrain on which the shadow falls.

Also, I don't see any objects in the photo you posted that would appear to cast a shadow that looks like a head on top of shoulders, so if that photo is evidence of anything, it's that the shadow is NOT so easy to explain with non-human objects. I do concede there is room for some doubt, but it seems more likely than not that a human shaped shadow next to a group of people is probably another human.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The shadow is half the width of the girls shadow,can you do a little drawing on top of the photo please to show me where you can see a head and shoulders,because I certainly can't see them?
Also even allowing for the shape of the terrain,the shadows are a lot longer I think you have to agree.The second photo could have been taken anywhere in either of my photos,even next to the road or on the other side of the road.The shadow would be to the north west if it was in the morning and to the north east if in the afternoon or evening.Who knows,it might not even have been taken on the same day.

Imagewerx
The shadow is half the width of the girls shadow,can you do a little drawing on top of the photo please to show me where you can see a head and shoulders,because I certainly can't see them?

If you have any questions about the shadow width, it should be why the shadow of the girl we can see is so wide...it doesn't have a human shape, what we can see of it. but obviously her dress is splayed out so that's why we see more of the shadow of her dress than we do of her, and this explains why her shadow is wider. The shadow of the unseen person looks more normal.

There is a little glare in the shot that makes it harder to see the shadow. You can see the glare as a vertical line between the two shoulder arrows, where it's lighter on the right and darker on the left. If you subtract that out it's a very clear head and shoulders type shadow. It's not shaped like the sign or any other non-human objects on the photo above.

Also even allowing for the shape of the terrain,the shadows are a lot longer I think you have to agree.

Longer than what? I don't see the shadow of the head of the girl who I can see, and that shadow is pretty long already, so I know she must be casting a long shadow. So it seems perfectly consistent that the other person would also cast a long shadow.

Actually you are right.I need to get out a bit more on nice summer evenings......



I think the girls shadow is ok though,but there's another faint one behind her?

Imagewerx
I think the girls shadow is ok though,but there's another faint one behind her?

Nice find on the other shadows...yes they can really get streched out.

It might be a shadow behind her, but if so I think it's just a small shadow from unevenness of the height of the foliage. If you look across the landscape you can see other slightly darker patches like that, and I think they are just shadows from either the unevenness of the terrain or the plants that grow on it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I would guess that the shadow is that of the father and the photo was taken with the camera on a tripod using the self timer function.If this is the case here,it's not very good photographic technique as the photographer would normally stay behind the camera so their shadow wasn't visible at all.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The biggest issues with what you continue to say are these:

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

1. You claim that the theories about the mother are both stupid and ridiculous, but you are unable to back up your comment. Something cannot just be stupid, you have to know why.

theres more things taking place than science can detect.

2. Obviously not because the camera operates under scientific principles and it detected this.

People don't find it plausible because....well, it looks like a space man!

3. Really? What does a spaceman look like and you can you refer me to other photographic evidence of actual spacemen who look like this spaceman?

Use all the common sense you want but it STILL looks more like a space man than the mother.

Not really. It looks quite obviously like the back of the mother. At the very least, we have a picture of another girl wearing a short leaved dress and we have no other spaceman pictures to compare it to. This supports the idea of the mother moreso than a spaceman.

It couldn't possibly be the mother who happened to be there, it has to be a stealth space man from the future.

Yes it could possibly be the mother. If not, please explain how it can not possibly be the mother or you cannot say it is impossible.

As far as stealth goes, why would a camera in 1964 be able to overcome a futuristic stealth device? If light and film are enough to overcome a stealth device from the future, we need to seriously rethink our future stealth technology because it is not very good. In fact, the dark would be more effective than this technology.

ZetaRediculian

People don't find it plausible because....well, it looks like a space man! Use all the common sense you want but it STILL looks more like a space man than the mother. It couldn't possibly be the mother who happened to be there, it has to be a stealth space man from the future.

What about my inter-dimensional bee keeper [IDBK] theory?

IDBK is the only plausible explanation.

ZetaRediculian
People don't find it plausible because....well, it looks like a space man! Use all the common sense you want but it STILL looks more like a space man than the mother. It couldn't possibly be the mother who happened to be there, it has to be a stealth space man from the future.

draknoir2
What about my inter-dimensional bee keeper [IDBK] theory?

IDBK is the only plausible explanation.

Both beekeepers and spacemen want to cover their arms.
Beekepers don't want to get bee stings on the arms, and spacemen don't want their arms exposed to the vacuum of space. So why would beekeepers or spacemen wear a sleeveless blue dress with their arms exposed? I would ask why a man would wear a dress at all, but now that it's 2014 I guess that's ok? But back when this picture was taken, spacemen didn't wear dresses.

Violater1

...
Here are some color-enhanced images:

That dress in the bottom photo seems to match the dress in the top photo, though the bottom photo was more overexposed.

reply to post by foxbarking


um? It looks like a space man from the future. You quoted someone else and then quoted my sarcasm. Anyway, there is no way it's a space man from the future. Do you even know what a space man from the future looks like?

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.