The Solway Firth spaceman a new theory

This photo was taken exactly 50 years ago today.

BBC did a piece on it with Dr. David Clarke chipping in with his thoughts on it.

Dr Clarke, who met Mr Templeton in 2002 - "I came away absolutely convinced he was telling the truth and couldn't explain it himself, although I was less convinced about his 'Men in Black' story. Whoever it was who visited him, I don't think they were from the government."

However, the spaceman, Dr Clarke says, is almost certainly not anything of the sort. "One of the other stills [taken that day] shows Jim's wife who, according to him, was standing behind him when he took the photo of Elizabeth," he said. "I think for some reason his wife walked into the shot and he didn't see her because with that particular make of camera you could only see 70% of what was in the shot through the viewfinder." Annie, he argues, was standing with her back to the camera and the photograph was over-exposed - causing her blue dress to look white.

Whatever the truth, for Dr Clarke it is a reminder of a more "innocent time" and he is in no doubt about its importance. "People now are much more cynical about these kind of pictures," he said. "Back in the 50s and 60s you got a few grainy stills showing extraordinary things. People were much more surprised and willing to suspend disbelief.

"For me, it's one of the most impressive anomalous images in supernatural investigations and people will still be talking about it in another 50 years." More on This Story

Source: www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: brianporter
This photo has been around since 1964 like many when I first saw it I was a little spooked by it and for 50 years it has perplexed millions of people however tonight it finally clicked in my mind what I was looking at!.

[snip]

The “spaceman ” in my opinion is a man on a horse!


[snip]

The photographer claimed he never saw anything in the picture at the time that could be the truth maybe he thought the horse rider was out of shot by the time he took the photo and later completely forgot about the rider passing its plausible in my opinion what do you think?

My opinion may not add anything to the thread but I criticize your opinion. There is no doubt that the photo has become an icon of the I-don't-know-what-the-hell-the-white-"figure"-is school of thought and that's where it stands as no one has yet to offer a plausible explanation since there doesn't seem to be one when all of the known details are considered. All that is available is the father's testimony and I'd rather accept his "I don't know" than off-the-wall theories from people who were not there and whose guesses violate logic.

a reply to: Uggielicious
Me and many others have offered a VERY plausible explanation as to why it can only be Jim's wife Annie with her back to us in "the" photo.Of course we weren't there,but we can and have used logic to come to a scientific conclusion based on the evidence we have seen,something that has a lot more substance than mere guesses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh and of course happy 50th birthday to the photo of the two Templeton females

a reply to: Imagewerx

why not add a shadow to the rider and horse theory? maybe because there is no shadow and there should be.

a reply to: bottleslingguy
What's the point in adding stuff that wasn't there when it was taken? The mother's shadow is hidden by the girls head.I would guess at the original photo being taken around mid day,hence short shadows close to the object.

a reply to: Imagewerx

no you would definitely see a shadow from the top of the head of the "mother" especially if not on a horse then is much closer, you would definitely see a shadow.

a reply to: bottleslingguy
Wanders around house looking for wall to bash head against.

a reply to: Imagewerx

again, if the mom is standing she must be closer to fit the height/shoulder width ratio but it looks like she is further away to match the height. that's why they put her on a horse. the mother theory is shakey at best. and the person on a horse theory is also just as silly. and it all hinges on the original story being a hoax. I believe the guy and it is odd enough that it coincides with the photos of the spacemen on the launch pad.

a reply to: bottleslingguy
I was about to type out a long and technical explanation for the kerzillionth time,then I realised "I give up" is about all I can manage now.I haven't finished banging my head against the wall,so I'm off for another couple of hours before the men in white coats come bursting through my door and give me one of those nice jackets that have the arms that buckle up round your back.

Looks to me like the mother. Can we shut this down now gosh????

originally posted by: ATSZOMBIE
Looks to me like the mother. Can we shut this down now gosh????

Thank you!!!!!!!!! Sadly a lot of people want there to be some sort of conspiracy involved or for there to be some fantastic other-worldly explanation.When confronted with the Occam's razor answer they're disappointed and desperately search for an alternative answer to lift it out of the mundane.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Clarke's analyzes on the Rendlesham forest case is pretty pathetic. He implied, that the army investigation was a mess becuase there was nothing to see there. He threw other bizarre things in his book. His work on the scareships is surprisingly good though.