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

a reply to: Imagewerx

I've seen it suggested that it was his wife in threads on the topic of the photo. I'd agree with that, she has her hand on her rear hip which gives her arm that weird bend look.

originally posted by: crystaloftruth
You nailed it Imagewerx. I've been fascinated and quite disturbed by this image for years and always saw a spaceman but I'm now 100% convinced by your explanation. Thanks for posting and good work.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.You like me won't be watching re-runs of Lost In Space any more trying to fit made-for-a-tv-series spacesuits into a photo of some blokes wife and daughter.

originally posted by: 3u40r15m
I really just read the whole OP, which I rarely do, for no conclusion..... WTF

What do you mean no conclusion? I explain in VERY great detail about a dozen times after that if you care to read the next page as well.
And why is the photographer an idiot,have you ever met him in person? He was some bloke taking photos of his family on a day out,why does that make him an idiot?

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Imagewerx

I've seen it suggested that it was his wife in threads on the topic of the photo. I'd agree with that, she has her hand on her rear hip which gives her arm that weird bend look.

Maybe she thought she was on the catwalk? (LOL)

Girl in blue dress explanation looks very accurate in shape and color details but it still cannot overcome two odd points.

First there is no plausable reason suggested for overexposing of the "girl in blue dress". She should look darker I'd suppose. It can't be simply incorrect blue channel response of the chemical film used, again I'd suppose.

Second, if she is really there, how tall she is? Just to make it easy for you to visualize, I copied "her image" to the right so you can estimate her distance and think about where to place her feet on the ground. Much of your imagination would end up near the horizon line. In fact, if the perspective is true and she's that far, would not be visible behind the girl in the foregroud.

There's no shadow of her, it may be explained by rougness of the terrain. But how can one explain where she is standing on? Distance/vertical position does not sum up.

I still cannot sketch up her body figure correctly on the ground. Whatever this figure is - it's either floating in the air or must have very long legs to stand in such a high position...

a reply to: resonatrix

If you read back through the thread (ALL the posts) you'll find that this has been answered already.In a nutshell as I'm knackered and need some sleep.

Portrait photos (like this) are normally taken at the eye level of the subject,this one happens to have been taken from just below eye level.The average 5 year old is about 4 feet tall standing up,about 3 foot or just below sitting down.I would guess at about half that (18 inches) being the height the photo was taken from.

Sooooo.....a photo taken from that low down looking upwards with a person in the background walking up a hill that isn't far off 1 in 1 will most definitely display this sort of perspective distortion. As adults we don't normally see the world from this viewpoint,try it maybe using the stairs at home and you'll see what I mean.

I think we have enough evidence now to be able to say once and for all that this is nothing more sinister than Jim's wife Annie walking away from us up a small hill (the sea defence).I have not seen any evidence to make me doubt this even the tiniest amount.

a reply to: Imagewerx



Thank you very much, now I can see girl in foreground is actually sitting in a large pit which I tried to show it's borders and slopes, grass covering the ground makes it difficult to realize combined with blurring effect of lost field depth by the distance. Even I can figure out a path near top edge the slope, meeting the other path coming from the horizon on the far right.

So the girl in blue dress is standing on a higher level and her body dimensions and distance perception are distorted by the properties of the lens. Grass layer she stands on is much closer to the camera then it seems. Still I try hard to visualize her feet in right place on the ground though

a reply to: resonatrix
She's not sitting in any kind of pit,again if you read ALL the thread you'll find this has already been covered in great detail.Here is as close as I can guess to where she's sitting from an educated guess....

Though this is a pretty old issue I've come across it just today while watching a program on HISTORY TV 18 and in no time i landed up here reading a possible answer to the unexplained or believed to be unexplained.
1) I just had this doubt when people were stating that the figure behind the girl in the first pic and the girl/woman beside her in the second pic is Annie-the mother of the girl but when I took a closer look at the second picture it looks to me like the person beside the girl wasn't actually the mother. This is because if we can compare the sizes two people in the picture it looks like another girl probably of the same age or may be a lil elder but nothing sort of a mother.
2) The shadow in the second picture might have been of the mother's if we assume that there were four people that day which includes Mr.Templeton, his wife and his two daughters.
3) This is to all of those who have been saying that it could be possible that the figure is a man because it appears to be muscular....If we look at the girl's hair it is flying towards the camera which means that the person behind the girl was wearing a dress ( be it the mother or their daughter) and that the wind was strong enough to blow the dress in such a way that the dress appears like a space suit in its washed out image.
4) If you ask me about the missing shadow i can tell u that if the person behind was a kid and the sun was over head and she was walking up a slope the shadow wouldn't be visible because of the slope ..(this is an explanation i made up from the knowledge i have about shadows..so not pretty sure of it.)
5) If the person was a kid then it is for sure the kid was too young to remember that she was standing up while the photo was being shot.
Probably the figure was a family member and stood up just to feel the breeze against her face and then continued to stand up in news even years later
a reply to: Imagewerx

a reply to: sashankha13

But nowhere in any account I've ever read does it (or he) say that there was anyone else other than the three of them there that day.The first (older) daughter has never been named as being there and the third one was yet to be born.

then how do we explain the shadow in the second picture??
a reply to: Imagewerx

originally posted by: sashankha13

then how do we explain the shadow in the second picture??
a reply to: Imagewerx

I can't explain it with 100% certainty,and can't even say Jim was telling the truth when says just the three of them were out on the marshes that day.
I said somewhere previously in this thread that the second photo could have been taken near the road,where are are various sign posts and it could have been the shadow of one of them.

originally posted by: Imagewerx

Originally posted by Rikku
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

so are you gonna claim your lifetime supply of kodak film?

I'm not sure if this actually counts as proving it as a fake? The photo wasn't actually faked,they just misinterpreted what they saw in it.Anyway I think I'd have fun trying to get old fashioned roll film into my Canon EOS20D

.

Oh yes sir, anyone who's anyone in the camera world knows the Canon EOS20D is the LAST camera you'd want in that situation in which you have just described. That's classic.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Imagewerx

Originally posted by Rikku
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

so are you gonna claim your lifetime supply of kodak film?

I'm not sure if this actually counts as proving it as a fake? The photo wasn't actually faked,they just misinterpreted what they saw in it.Anyway I think I'd have fun trying to get old fashioned roll film into my Canon EOS20D

.

Oh yes sir, anyone who's anyone in the camera world knows the Canon EOS20D is the LAST camera you'd want in that situation in which you have just described. That's classic.

Can you please explain what you mean here as it doesn't make any sense to me?

originally posted by: Imagewerx

originally posted by: 3u40r15m
I really just read the whole OP, which I rarely do, for no conclusion..... WTF

What do you mean no conclusion? I explain in VERY great detail about a dozen times after that if you care to read the next page as well.
And why is the photographer an idiot,have you ever met him in person? He was some bloke taking photos of his family on a day out,why does that make him an idiot?

To add my 2¢, I came across this thread after seeing the topic on the TV show Unsealed: Alien Files. At the time I wasn't a member so couldn't comment, but now I can. First of all, I don't know if the OP is a genius, but the solution is a work of genius. I totally accept it with highest kudos. By the way, according to Wikipedia, some professor dude either came to the same conclusion or stole it from here: en.wikipedia.org...

Second, the photographer may not be an idiot, but he is a pathetic attention hound for having concocted a ridiculous story about being practically abducted and abandoned in the marsh by some mysterious men in black who referred to each other only by numbers and were upset at him for not admitting to having seen the spaceman at the time, and something about them asking about the "other" spaceman, or some such malarkey. (Why no eyeroll icon I can insert here?) This story was connected by him and/or others with the scrubbing of a missile launch in Australia supposedly disrupted by similar white-suited figures (but really postponed due to weather). It's like, hellloooooooooo...the guy takes a blurry, out-of-focus photo of his wife's back and then runs off on these wild tangents? That is, unless someone posing as MIBs really played a huge practical joke on him. How sorry is that, either way, on somebody's part? (No headshake icon, either, alas.)

Thank you for your kind and thought provoking words.It still amazes me that even back then not one single person ever said to him 'Jim you bell end,that's not an alien in that photo,it's your wife.You know the one,that woman you married?'
You would have thought back then their minds wouldn't have been clouded by the endless stream of mindless crap we read on the internet and would have made a more accurate judgement of their own?

Ok, that makes sense but last question. Didn't he take 3 pictures in a row and this was the middle picture? Why wasn't she in the other two?

a reply to: Reklisammy

Also explained in an earlier post in this thread. The mother was bent over picking flowers, straightened up headed uphill just long enough to appear in one photo, and either went over the hill or bent down again.

The wife is the Alien that's a whole lot of bunk nonsense. The first person who can use a polaroid camera with Kodak film who can reproduce the picture through over expose to show a space man that we can match up to the Sol picture and say yes that looks the same; ill give 500 bucks to. Im sure polaroid cams are real cheaps these days, so go for your life if you buy that one.

I've met some women who could only be aliens judging by their behaviour after a couple of glasses of red wine,and how they treat members of the opposite sex.But in this case it would seem that as the Templeton kids were 100% normal,Annie must also have had 100% human DNA.