It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Cumbrian Spaceman

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
The photo was taken on a fairly desolate stretch of marshland, so it could easily have been a set up, but that still doesn't explain the supposed government intervention!




posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Well, something we should think about is what motivation anyone could possibly have for being in that area, in that year, wearing that type of covering.

It's obviously not a beekeeper. Could it be related to some kind of invisibility program? Was there any sort of military base, or high profile scientific corporation near by?

[edit on 5-8-2004 by TheHeggy]


RR

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Everytime I've ever seen that pic I always just assumed it was one of these, here's another and yet another! Just turn the thing around backwards and shoot it so that the extended arm is hidden then of course make it blurry behind the presumed "real" subject of the photo and voila, instant alien.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by RR]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Hmmm, there was an Army munitions unit to the North of Carlisle, and as the article said, testing a of the Blue Streak rocket took place at RAF Spadeadam, which though in the same administrative county, isn't really cloe by. The short answer to the question of whether this site was close to military/scientific establishments is no...unless they were VERY well hiddden.




Burgh marsh, where the photo was taken is just to the left of Carlisle. There isn't much there to be honest...but Edward I died there!!!!!

[edit on 5-8-2004 by KhieuSamphan]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I was trying to judge the height of the person in the background relative to the horizon of the hill, and I think this thing would have had to of been almost 8 feet tall. Here's what I did:

I took the photo located at THIS URL and opened it in Photoshop 7.

I rotated the image so the horizon line was as perfectly horizontal as I could make it. (Also applied "Auto Levels" to correct the colours a little)

The height of the figure's head is shown by the two black lines, and a size reference was made by creating a red square the same size.

By stacking the red boxes from where the figure's head is, to the horizon line, you can tell that the figure is just about 8 heads high.

Now, my head is probably about a foot tall.... I didn't really measure, but regardless, 7 to 8 feet is still incredibly tall for any sort of human. Not sure if this helps anyone, or just adds to the weirdness....




[edit on 5-8-2004 by TheHeggy]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Also, if this person were standing any further down than the exact horizon, that would only make him taller.... And have extremely LONG legs.

One more thing:

Even with the horizon being completely level, the figure still appears to be leaning a little. This might be because of uneven terrain or something, but if he's standing near the top of the horizon line he should still be level.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by TheHeggy]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Considering you don't know if the figure is standing on something, or jumping, it's hard to assume that it is 8 feet tall...


still doesn't explain the supposed government intervention!
no, but hype and outright distortion of facts does....



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   

At that time, there was no such fashion.


A white hooded sweatshirt, and a white golf cap didn't exist in the sixties???
It's the back of a golfer....the photographer lied about the man not being there, and the government intervention, when he saw that the image looked weird on film, and decided to make a few bucks...



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
If the thing was jumping, I don't see the reasoning behind it's arms being how they are in the photo.

Even if that's the case, it would still be the same height. If you look at it, it's proportions dictate that it has to be at least 7 heads high, unless it has super short legs.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I'll admit that it doesn't appear to be jumping, but just stating the possibility. Cameras can get some really weird proportions, light tricks, etc. too... And you still can't tell whether or not he's standing on something (a rock, etc. to see where his golf ball went)



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
For starters, this picture is taken at a marsh. So we can rule out beekeepers and golfers.
As to the direction the figure is faciong, hard to tell. the whole arm/elbow line seems blurred, like one of those optical illusions where you see something one way, and another thing if you look differently.

I dunno what to make of this. There isnt enough evidence and such surrounding this thing to make a final judgement on this.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Well, golf attire...it isn't just for golfers anymore...
It sounded better than "old man resort casual"
It's either a man so dressed, and facing backwards, or a female beekeeper/HASMAT suit facing forward, hehe...

In either case, to call it a "spaceman" is really jumping to a LOT of conclusions, even moreso than my golfer/retiree....hehe....


[edit on 5-8-2004 by Gazrok]


RR

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Hey Gazrok, what do you think of my Lawn Jockey theory? I don't have the skills to put up a side by side but if you study the picture in the link I provided you can see how the two are very similar. Note in particular how the bend of the arm would leave the hand sort of to the back of the hip which if you follow the implied direction of the hand in the Cumbrian picture it seems to fall exactly where the hand of the Jockey rests. Just for clarification I'm saying that the figure standing behind the girl has it's back to her which does seem to line up with my suggestion that it is in fact a "Lawn Jockey" statue or something very similar.

My conjecture is that it quite possibly is a double exposure that the guy who took the picture simply didn't know about or forgot about.


[edit on 5-8-2004 by RR]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Nah...but I do think the guy in the picture, is in basically the same pose, and has his back to the camera....



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Ill agree Gazrok, that calling it a spaceman is oremature. Whats worse, is that Im on a crap computer with crap resolution, so I cannot study this picture better .

If the entire story is true, it is indeed really strange, and the indivudual in the photo coild be a number of things. However, there really isnt enough information on this event, so I reserve final judgement for a later day,



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I just cannot believe, that camera tricks would take any role in the photographics of the sixties. We are all thinking the way like modern people, but in those days people took great care of photographing, and it was an expensive game, too. Especially in colour. Do you really think, that golfers were jumping around for fun to look cool on a picture? Oh, yeah: standing on a chair, specially to take role in the photo. Even dressed up like Schumaher in white suit... :-D

I just think, that the photographer was not aware of that person being there.

Seeing him from behind is logical, as bending the arms forward would be hardly impossible for any advanced creature. But aliens why not turn their head completely back like owls do? He may be seen from the back, but it really looks like a motorist head from the front. Well, he is definately tall, and I don't think, he is standing on anything ... if the photo is really true.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
ok this thread is really old, but i was reading about this phenomenon, and i found the following site that kinda explains if its possibly a hoax, and some guy who analyzed the pic a lot.

Cumbrian Spaceman Solved?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Don't know if anyone else picked it up but, in the original, the little girl seems to cast quite a solid shadow to the right. You would have thought a figure standing behind would cast a discernible shadow too.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I reckon its a combination of clouds, blowing hair and dust on the lens...with a large dose of coincidence.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
I reckon its a combination of clouds, blowing hair and dust on the lens...with a large dose of coincidence.


I know this is a 7 year old conversation, but does anyone know if this has had any developments, particularly if it has been debunked or not?




edit on 25-4-2011 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2011 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join