The Solway Firth spaceman-SOLVED!!!!!!

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 

Your explanation is highly plausible.
I don't, though, count it definitive.
Could simply be the quality of the film, or of the camera...or of the photo you used to make the point/s...but, I don't see the same demarcation at the sleeve-line for the other (left) arm.
Nonetheless - thanks for putting this together!




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Hmmmm... I like the explanation OP, but can you or we find evidence of similar film failures? I would think the little girl area of the photo, or surrounding area should have some similar anomalies if it is in fact the film.

This is a weird photo, and it's actually the first time I've seen it. Film, film is harder to fake added imagery, how ever if it were a " stand in" type hoax I could see that.

It is very odd, whatever it is.

Have any of the other photos he's taken on that camera turned out with weird failures?

What about the same film? I'm aware in 10, 20 maybe even a 100 rolls may not fail the same way, it just seems odd just that one area of the photo would suffer this failure.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Interesting theory.
Unless His wife looks like a 10 year old girl, I doubt that photo of the female bending over next to the daughter in the blue dress, is a full grown "Wife"...she is wearing very girly clothes and is not much bigger than the daughter, and has light brown shortish hair.....so I would say that is another young girl, not the Mother/wife.

The figure is definitely a rear view of a "Person", as can be seen by the bend of the elbow, the way it is attached to the shoulder etc. Also this rear view shows the shoulder blades attached to the neck, as you would looking at a "Male" from behind.
I think there is another person there, that either was not seen or even disregarded by the photographer. Perhaps with the new cameras zoom ability etc, the figure wasnt seen in the viewfinder, but was brought more to the foreground by the camera's lens, then onto the photo.

So...who is the young girl playing near the daughter?...no explanation?, but we can rule out the dark haired wife fairly certainly...unless a photo of the wife is produced showing her wearing those clothes on that day.
The "Spaceman" appears to be a man facing the opposite direction (looking at the view), with dark hair and one of those little British caps people wore in those days, and his right hand almost on his hip. And probably further away than he appears in the distored image.
Solved!!!
.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash
reply to post by Imagewerx
 

Your explanation is highly plausible.
I don't, though, count it definitive.
Could simply be the quality of the film, or of the camera...or of the photo you used to make the point/s...but, I don't see the same demarcation at the sleeve-line for the other (left) arm.
Nonetheless - thanks for putting this together!

It would have been the best quality Kodak colour print film available at that time,Kodak didn't do high or low quality as such.As mentioned before it would have had a much more limited dynamic range than today's films (or digital sensors) so the left arm shows no detail because it's over exposed compared to the right arm and is "washed out" as photographers call it.Perfectly normal when trying to expose for shadows and highlights at the same time on a bright sunny day,especially with the VERY crude exposure metering system used on these early cameras which wouldn't have been TTL (Through The Lens) metering.
I'm sure if I played with enough things in Photoshop for long enough I could pull some missing detail out of the highlights,but it gets to the point where you're enhancing and seeing random pixels that might just be a result of converting the photo into digital format and weren't there when the photo was taken.


Originally posted by Hijinx
Hmmmm... I like the explanation OP, but can you or we find evidence of similar film failures? I would think the little girl area of the photo, or surrounding area should have some similar anomalies if it is in fact the film.

This is a weird photo, and it's actually the first time I've seen it. Film, film is harder to fake added imagery, how ever if it were a " stand in" type hoax I could see that.

It is very odd, whatever it is.

Have any of the other photos he's taken on that camera turned out with weird failures?

What about the same film? I'm aware in 10, 20 maybe even a 100 rolls may not fail the same way, it just seems odd just that one area of the photo would suffer this failure.


I'm not aware of what "film failure" you're referring to,or do you mean the over exposed area of the photo? If so then as I explained above it's perfectly normal for every single type of imaging device from the very early Dagguerotypes to the very latest digital imaging sensors.
The original photo showing the "spaceman" and the one showing the alleged wife picking flowers next to the daughter are the only photos that have made it into the public domain.This fact alone does seem a bit odd,that unless they were the last two shots on that roll of film and he didn't have any more film,wouldn't have taken a lot more photos of his daughter on such a nice day and in such an idyllic location?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
Interesting theory.
Unless His wife looks like a 10 year old girl, I doubt that photo of the female bending over next to the daughter in the blue dress, is a full grown "Wife"...she is wearing very girly clothes and is not much bigger than the daughter, and has light brown shortish hair.....so I would say that is another young girl, not the Mother/wife.

The figure is definitely a rear view of a "Person", as can be seen by the bend of the elbow, the way it is attached to the shoulder etc. Also this rear view shows the shoulder blades attached to the neck, as you would looking at a "Male" from behind.
I think there is another person there, that either was not seen or even disregarded by the photographer. Perhaps with the new cameras zoom ability etc, the figure wasnt seen in the viewfinder, but was brought more to the foreground by the camera's lens, then onto the photo.

So...who is the young girl playing near the daughter?...no explanation?, but we can rule out the dark haired wife fairly certainly...unless a photo of the wife is produced showing her wearing those clothes on that day.
The "Spaceman" appears to be a man facing the opposite direction (looking at the view), with dark hair and one of those little British caps people wore in those days, and his right hand almost on his hip. And probably further away than he appears in the distored image.
Solved!!!
.


From the video interviews with Jim we can see that he isn't very tall,I'd guess about 5ft 7in (ish),and the photo of the couple looking at Jim's new camera shows here to be a few inches shorter than he is,so she certainly was less than the average size for a full grown adult.But yes I do agree the person does look vaguely child like,but Googling girls and womens dresses for that year shows that both were VERY similar in a lot of cases.
A camera of the age wouldn't have had zoom,but would have been fixed focus.The normal or "prime" lens for that type of camera to be fitted with when new would have been a 50mm,which gives life size reproduction meaning it is neither wide angle nor long focus.
I'm still adamant that the "spaceman" is the exact same person shown next to the daughter in the other photo,but I'm willing to agree that it MIGHT not be the wife.But no matter what it is,it most definitely isn't a man wearing a space suit.
Sadly Jim died last year,so if there ever where any other photos taken that day that did come out we'll probably never see them.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagewerx

From the video interviews with Jim we can see that he isn't very tall,I'd guess about 5ft 7in (ish),and the photo of the couple looking at Jim's new camera shows here to be a few inches shorter than he is,so she certainly was less than the average size for a full grown adult.But yes I do agree the person does look vaguely child like,but Googling girls and womens dresses for that year shows that both were VERY similar in a lot of cases.
A camera of the age wouldn't have had zoom,but would have been fixed focus.The normal or "prime" lens for that type of camera to be fitted with when new would have been a 50mm,which gives life size reproduction meaning it is neither wide angle nor long focus.
I'm still adamant that the "spaceman" is the exact same person shown next to the daughter in the other photo,but I'm willing to agree that it MIGHT not be the wife.But no matter what it is,it most definitely isn't a man wearing a space suit.
Sadly Jim died last year,so if there ever where any other photos taken that day that did come out we'll probably never see them.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



Yes I agree, its not a "Spaceman"


Im Still not convinced the person in the blue dress is the wife. Particularly if the other picture of the husband and wife looking at the camera was take around the same time period, which Im guessing it was.

To start with the hair is wrong, the Girl bending over has brown straight hair, the wife has dark wavy hair.
The wife appears to be mid 30s to 40ish years old (they all looked older then).....and is showing typical sagging jowls, double chin and bits drooping on her face, I would think that she would have, what was called, bingo wings....flabby skin and fat that hangs from her upper arms. Many women even in their 20s exhibit this, but mostly in their 30s-40+yos.
The Girl in the blue dress does not exhibit any sign of "Bingo Wings", in fact her forearm width is similar to that of the 5 yo daughter...not a 30-40 mother of the 1960s. In fact to me, a 30-40 yo woman at that time period would probably have some difficulty in getting on their knees and bending forward on one hand.....not a normal "Motherly" pose to take a picture of. Tho some women still use to get on their hands and knees to scrub the floor in those days....so it is possible. Its still looks like 2 girls playing to me.

Of course we can only go by the description given at the time, but to me, there were other people at the same place at the same time, that have not been mentioned in the original story, for whatever reason we will never know.
Has the wife Actually stated that she is the person (girl) in the blue dress at any time?

I was 5 in 1964 too, I remember how people dressed, and yes, gay summer fabrics were the norm, for the younger set. ( note.gay used in correct term)
edit on 4-11-2012 by gort51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
This is a great little mystery!
Is the "spaceman" quite close to her ? it looks like it. Also ive always wondered why the figure is leaning.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I've not read any of the other reply's yet, only the OP. I've seen this image many times before and I'm not sure of your theory (looking forward to reading it, though!) but to me this just looks like a set up or doctored photo. It looks like a toy being held up behind her and I know that everybody involved said they didn't tamper with it but for me it looks too fake. The "Spaceman" seems to be moon hopping instead of peering over somebody's shoulder! I'd be interested to see if anybody can find a pic of an astronaut in the same pose?

My conclusion: Faked, just don't know how. Maybe even faked by mistake and thats why the taker of the photo can't explain it.

Ah ok! Enjoyed your theory, and everybody's posts. Must admit, I always think spaceman before I look at the photo, never thought of showing it to somebody who has never seen it before just to see what their initial response would be!
edit on 5-11-2012 by broddeb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 

I think it's unkind to label all working class women of that era as having bingo wings,but from the only photo known of her at the time shows her general condition as being "normal" and not carrying excess baggage.I think if we were to go all out on this and analyse the second figure picking flowers,we'd find a height of somewhere in the low to mid five foot region,and the figure in the famous photo to be a taller person further away walking up a slope than a shorter person closer behind the subject.
I now can't find the article I read a while back about when they got married,how old Annie was and other stuff about her so can't verify much of the story from her perspective.

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
This is a great little mystery!
Is the "spaceman" quite close to her ? it looks like it. Also ive always wondered why the figure is leaning.

I think maybe the figure is jogging or running up the hill and as some joggers do bobs slightly from side-to-side?
reply to post by broddeb
 

We also can't rule out it being faked just because Kodak couldn't prove it was.Maybe the chance remark by the chemist handing Jim back his photos that was always intended to be a joke just snowballed.Jim took it seriously or even didn't but saw the opportunity to make some money (even though he's keen to point out that he never did) and after all that has been written about it over the last 50 years or so didn't have the heart or balls to reveal that it was all just a big joke.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 


im not sure if im pronouncing it right.. but i believe what we are seeing on the picture is actually ECTOPLASM . maybe the girl has some sort of psychic abilities



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by k1k1to
 

Maybe she has got "powers",but sometimes a human female walking up a hill is nothing more than a human female walking up a hill.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
How can we be so sure that this is not a test of HAARP? Maybe it caught a reptilian in it's beam



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
How can we be so sure that this is not a test of HAARP? Maybe it caught a reptilian in it's beam


Really I think you have been exposd to way too many microwave particles.

Comments like this are not even funny, they are made by trolls, are troll like and provide nothing to the thread or the conversation on hand. The OP has gone to quite a bit of bother to debunk a myth that goes back longer than you have been alive and the best you can do is drop in, blurt out some garbage that has no relevance and just be of no use at all.

focus on topic.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Hats off to the OP, I think he's cracked it. The leaning angle always seemed a bit off to me along with the bend in the arm. I never it gave it much more thought than that to be honest but look at it; it's totally the back of someone's elbow.

It's not been a long thread, OP, but I've enjoyed it. I'd love to see you cast your eyes over other ATS-type mysteries.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
How can we be so sure that this is not a test of HAARP? Maybe it caught a reptilian in it's beam

Because HAARP is an HF transmitter into a ground based antenna array used to investigate what happens when we heat up a small area of the ionosphere directly above it.The antenna is directional so can't be pointed anywhere else other than directly upwards.Reptilians can only be found in science fiction books and crackpot conspiracy websites and don't actually exist in the real world,so that rules them out.
Also you notice this happened some 30 years before they even built the HAARP facility,so again irrelevant here.Sorry to disappoint you,but HAARP is responsible for nothing more exciting than a load of scientific data comprising of graphs and numbers.

Now can we please keep this on topic,as pointed out above I did go to some trouble to gather the information together to TRY to solve this mystery once and for all.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeo
Hats off to the OP, I think he's cracked it. The leaning angle always seemed a bit off to me along with the bend in the arm. I never it gave it much more thought than that to be honest but look at it; it's totally the back of someone's elbow.

It's not been a long thread, OP, but I've enjoyed it. I'd love to see you cast your eyes over other ATS-type mysteries.

Thanks,although I can't really take all the credit for almost solving this one. I'm still convinced it's Jim's wife Annie despite some other ideas that have been put forward,and maybe this is nothing more than the chance remark of a shortsighted chemist planting the same seed into Jim's brain that's been planted into mine and everyone else's that saw a photo labelled "The Solway Firth Spaceman".If the photo had been labelled "A day out on Burgh Marsh with my family",the photos would have been forgotten and never got any further than the Templeton family photo album.
Oh and if I've got a spare couple of decades,I'll see what I can do with some of the other mysteries that are almost certainly anything but mysteries.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 


It was in the 60's when I first saw this photo. It was on the cover of a magazine in the super market. It creeped me out and I never forgot it. Kodak offered a reward for anyone who could solve it. The reward was never claimed. So why would Kodak, who have knowledge of film and cameras, not thought of your idea already? It would be interesting for you to present it to them to see what they say about it, BEFORE you make anymore claims of solving it.

To me it is just a joke by the camera man. Especially when he involved the Men In Black. But those who think it could be real have attached a significance to it because operators of the Blue Streak claimed to have seen the figure in the photo.

So by what you are saying, the technicians don't recognize their own workers when they see them? Or is it that his wife was responsible for aborting an international ICBM test? And not only does he have 1 wife but he has 2?

Officially a Blue Streak launch had been aborted because of two large men seen on the firing range. Technicians at the time did not know about Templeton's sighting until it appeared on the front page of an Australian newspaper, but they said that the figures in Cumbria looked the same as the ones they had seen on the monitor at Woomera. Templeton told the BBC that technicians considered the two figures to be 'exactly the same type of man: same dress,same figure, same size as in the original photograph.'"



Or is it that hIs wife sure gets around!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect

Officially a Blue Streak launch had been aborted because of two large men seen on the firing range.


I don't think that was ever the official reason it was aborted........bad weather was the official cause.

Even if the report of 2 men in white suits were a true account, it doesn't mean they actually saw the same person/spaceman that appears in the Solway photo.

People all over the world began reporting "sightings" of Hitler after the war as rumours began to circulate that Hitler wasn't dead.
My favorite post death Hitler sighting was when Hitler was seen disguised as a waiter working in an Austrian restaurant!


A more recent subject of world wide sightings is missing girl Madelaine Mccaan, who has been seen in almost as many countries as Hitler did!
One person even have stated in the press that they were 100% certain that they had seen Madeleine in a cafe......except that DNA tests from a drinking straw shows it wasn't Madeleine at all.

So I guess you can say sightings of supposedly the same person is hardly very reliable.....even if they are of men in white suits!



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
. Kodak offered a reward for anyone who could solve it. The reward was never claimed. So why would Kodak, who have knowledge of film and cameras, not thought of your idea already?


Well perhaps Kodak had their ideas of what the image was.........but at that time it would have been wonderful free advertising for Kodak, and since the first "alien spaceman" was caught on Kodak film..........then far better for Kodak to have run with the story........rather than say......."yeah we can explain the photo......it was the back of your wife........and nothing to do with alien spacemen".........that sorta doesn't have the same appeal does it.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I found a hi res version of this pic. I then proceeded to send it thru the photoshop mill, and tried to keep details, colors, and try to NOT have stupid artifacts. It doesn't look like the kid's mother to me. Mostly because- that is the most unshapely woman I have ever seen. I managed to get some contour shadows to come out after monkeying with this thing.




If that's a woman....

I also think that whatever it is, it's back is to the camera.
edit on 22-8-2013 by wylekat because: I forgot some stuff.






top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join