Solway Firth Spaceman Revisited..........(Clear Face)

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Imagewerx

I apologise totally for taking your comment a bit too serious. Too early in morning and up late with the dodgy leg. Also good post and for taking the time in the discussion, which is the only way to get to the bottom of things. Im from Belfast which is possibly the worst accent in the world. In my head I sound ok, but when hearing it back when making an appearance on some midget porn set it doesn't sound too good

.

I actually like the general Irish accent better than some of our own native regional twangs (if that's the correct word).LOL at midget porn set metaphor.

Now about the using that type of camera question?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Imagewerx

You told me off for trying to inject a bit of humour into a seemingly humourless situation.I guess you're not British and so don't understand our sense of humour?

I'm American. Benny Hill, Monty Python, Mr Bean. All very funny. The Holy Grail is probably my favorite.

Who can't not like Monty Python,especially as they gave us the template for almost all modern comedy.

Also it doesn't look like a doll - it looks like a live person. Have yet to see a doll that has scapulae that articulate in conjunction with the arms like that... especially not back then. My Major Matt Mason action figure couldn't, and it was cutting edge.

I have had a good look at the image and tried my best to determine some sort of leg length and measure the distance from the foreground.

So using the idea that the average persons legs will be 1.4 times the length of the upper body I created what is shown below to be where the legs and feet should be. I was a bit surprised to find something white where the foot should be, I initially assumed it to be a flower. Furthermore after using many darkening and colour alterations there is no shadow of a person there which I find strange. Has anyone an opinion?



Having done this I decided to get a rough estimate of the head size of the figure. Not knowing the size of the girl I decided to use the pixel count on the screen just to compare the ratios of head sizes. I was very surprised by what I found.

I took the measurements of the girls head which from head to chin is 580 pixels. Then I took an average size of 5 flowers scattered around the girl and what she is holding which came in at 24 width and 27 height. The figures head size at the back is from top to chin 75 pixels. And the same with taking an average of the flowers around where I measured his feet. This came in at 5 width and 6 height.
By dividing the average flower size at front by that at the back I found:

27 / 6 = 4.5.

The flower at the front is 4.5 time bigger than the flower at the base of the figure.

Therefore using this ratio I multiplied the size of the mans head of 27 pixels by 4.5 which is 340 pixels.

By dividing the size of the girls head by the figures calculated head size I find that the girls head is 1.7 times bigger than the figure at the back.

I know the math is very rough but it is the best I can do with limited pictures but this has shocked me. Looking at it I assumed the figure to be very tall, muscular and male, however staying in proportion of the head sizes must be a lot smaller than I first thought.

Can anyone offer me something on this because I find this very odd

Furthermore I have found the humerus of the girl to be roughly 1.3 times the length of the figure at the back. This may fit in with the head calculation as a girls humerus 17% of her standing height at this age compared to 20% of height when she is 17. So her humerus will grow where her head will not grow anywhere near as much. The math seems to point to the figure being smaller than this young girl who is around 6 - 7?

a reply to: draknoir2

I agree with you totally that there is no way that it is a doll or G.I Joe etc. The posture and distance from camera is reflected in the picture and as set out above is surprisingly smaller than this young girl. Which surprised me.

a reply to: Imagewerx

After reading your post I decided to have a look at the visible view on the camera and understand totally what you say. But within the field of view there is still and good big arm directly to the side of her hair. Also there were apparently 3 photos with this being the 2nd one. So in the field of view of 70% of the image you would have seen someone entering or exiting the scene. Unfortunately we don't have these pics.
But even after looking in depth into what you have said I still don't feel that you do not see someone entering the screen behind your daughter. It is a small enough camera and I don't feel that his eye would be glued to the camera the whole time. When he finished the picture and if had looked to see if there was anyone in what is a quiet field I think he would have remembered.

Also could you look over the measurements above as im sure you would have a better idea since you seem to know your cameras (only camera I have is the mobile phone and a webcam )

a reply to: liteonit6969

I need bed now but tomorrow I'll do a viewfinder mockup of the scene.What I will say for now is my first SLR was one of these....



Although not the same as the one Jim was using that day,it's not too far removed from it.The difference back then was we were limited by the number of shots on a roll of film,typically 24 for a school boy like me for a whole weekend.Now I can fit 4000 photos on a single memory card the size of a postage stamp.If anyone offers time machine rides back to the early 1970s,I'll stay where I am in 2014 thank you very much.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Just wanted to mention that it's a known and documented fact that if someone is focused on something, most everything outside of the focused object is out of sight and out of mind.

This science experiment is the perfect example:

www.livescience.com...


As they say in the experiment, "it's easy to miss details when one is not looking for them".

He missed his wife standing in the background because he was not looking for or at her. He was focused on his daughter.

a reply to: Imagewerx

I found this image showing the frame what Jim would have been looking at. I did the measurements to check if these are correct and they fit well.



I am making my comment based on what I would do or think in his situation as I have no idea what type of person he was. I am quite a jumpy sort of nervous and watch everything to the point I do my own head in trying to memorise every car number plate that goes past (torture). Therefore in this situation taking a picture of my daughter I would moving between full view and camera view to ensure she is in good position and happy while also talking to her. Also I would know if someone walks behind her even if it is a small glimpse of an arm, especially when he said there is no one there.

Also i feel if there was somebody there the little girl would have picked up on it as they would have walk from somewhere to the right to behind her with her peripheral vision which is sensitive and like most children they only need the slightest distraction to look away. I cant see this reaction in her face.

But ultimately it is down to how i interpret the way these people would act in this situation and not actually how they truly acted.

Finally i think this topic is going a little bit further than some of the other threads as looking over them and other sites there seem to be a regurgitation of the same image analysis and peoples unwillingness to the possibility of it being someone other than his wife.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

I agree totally with what you say in being focused on something to the point everything around loses focus in sight and mind. Brings me back to the good old days when i first found porn on the internet and not focusing on my mother walking into the room, don't think ive ever # myself as mch as i did then when i was caught ah....red handed

I just feel there is more to this than what many people think with there being so many parts of the figure not in fitting with a woman. Also have you any comment on the measurements above. Im sure they are very very rough, but i do think the figure behind is a lot smaller than people think.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

The woman in the blue dress appears to have a MUCH smaller build than whatever that is in the image from the OP...

a reply to: lovebeck

Nice to have a different perspective on the image, and i agree the size, shape and builds do not match.