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.

 

Solway Firth Spaceman

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The story of the Solway Firth Spaceman in the photogragh, which shows the spaceman in the background behind the little girl, is described in the quote below, which comes from the linked Wiki source.

en.wikipedia.org...



The Solway Firth Spaceman (also known as the Solway Spaceman and the Cumberland Spaceman) is a mysterious figure seen in a photograph taken by Jim Templeton in 1964 at Burgh Marsh, situated near Burgh by Sands and overlooking the Solway Firth in Cumbria, England. Templeton claims the photograph shows a background figure wearing a space suit and has insisted that he did not see anyone present when the photograph was taken. Templeton said the only other people on the marshes that day were a couple of old ladies sitting in a car at the far end of the marsh.

In a letter to the Daily Mail in 2002, Templeton stated, "I took three pictures of my daughter Elizabeth in a similar pose – and was shocked when the middle picture came back from Kodak displaying what looks like a spaceman in the background."[2][not in citation given] Templeton insists that he did not see the figure until after his photographs were developed, and analysts at Kodak confirmed that the photograph was genuine.[1]



And of course heres the famous picture.




This is where it gets intriguing. Now this picture was taken in Cumberland which is a historic county of North West England.

And what did her Majesty's Government think of all this?



Templeton claims to have been visited after the photograph was published by two men from "Her Majesty's Government" who refused to show their identification. Templeton claims that when he refused to admit the photo was of a passer-by, the men became angry and drove away leaving him to walk home

Responding to a request from ufologists to know if the photo was of interest to the authorities, a British Ministry of Defence official said that the Templeton photo was of no interest to them.



And what did Templetons own investigative efforts uncover?



In a BBC Look North interview and a letter to The Daily Mail, Templeton also claimed that a Blue Streak missile launch at the Woomera Test Range had been aborted because the figures of two large men were seen on the firing range. Templeton alleged that technicians later saw his photograph in an Australian newspaper and found the figures to be "exactly the same type of man, same dress, same figure, same size.


So there you have it another Alien bag and tagged by the Government disinformation machine in the 1960s.
Now its 2013 i think its time to bring this Alien back on the table for scrutiny. What do you people think?

Personally i dont know what that thing is in the background picture, but i do know this much, there really is a solid form there. Look at the shadow on the underside of the arm of the spacesuit man, its consistent with the shadowing on the girls face.

And please debunkers do us all a favour and forget the arguments of photoshopping and CGI this is the 1960s remember.


edit on 25-4-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
He'd have to have really long legs.

And why is he at an angle like that? It looks like it was done as a joke (sort of like the two fingers behind the head trick).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Hes certainly doing a pose for the camera, as if he really wants to present well in the photograph with girl. He seems taller than he should be for where he is standing. Mabey behind the girl is a rock hes standing on, or mabey he has real long legs. Then mabey hes real alien in a anti gravity suit and hes floating off the ground.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
There's already numerous threads on this, but the most plausible explanation is the "spaceman" is the girl's mother in the background. See this post for more information.






edit on 25-4-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That threads proposing its her mother in background and the picture is over exposed. Im having trouble buying that one. Mainly because i have seen pictures taken with cameras in the early 1900s of towns and people, at near and medium and far distances, and i see no space men in them pictures. So unless camera technology devolved in the subsequent sixty years i find it hard to buy that as a credible reason.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Here's an interesting interview with British researcher Jenny Randles and the photographer - think you may have to click on the link as the ATS embedded video isn't working properly.



(click to open player in new window)



Cheers.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
its the 60s stig in a early appearance thats what it looks like to me



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I am positive that this thread exists multiple times over.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Thanks for vid, very interesting. The points i made watching the video was

- government told them to drop it and not pursue issue further.
- government agents would not identify what agency they are from despite being asked for ID
- Its difficult to take picture in that time of year on marsh without getting animal in picture, on that days all the cows were way off in distance huddle in corner of marsh, as if spooked
- picture went aroudn world and including the australian newscover, and technican from the Australian woomera military rocket base contacted him says thats the same guy they saw on tv monitoring the rocket being launched, and caused stop of the rocket count down.
- ministery of defence records file identifies they had a aborted woomera rocket test on the same week the photo was taken. The record identifies film of the launch countdown was taken, but the film is not in archive has gone missing
edit on 25-4-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There's already numerous threads on this, but the most plausible explanation is the "spaceman" is the girl's mother in the background. See this post for more information.






edit on 25-4-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


Just to clarify how it looks to me and correct me if I'm wrong but the figure has it's back to the camera going on how the right arm is shaped.

I'm not saying I know what it is, or even if it's a "spaceman", but I know what it isn't and it certainly isn't the mother. I would have to say that debunking effort is clutching at straws at best.

And, why would the family decide to make public the rest of the photos if that were the case? Makes absolutely no sense at all.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There's already numerous threads on this, but the most plausible explanation is the "spaceman" is the girl's mother in the background. See this post for more information.






edit on 25-4-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


And that is the best and most likely explanation. Overexposure and wife standing behind little girl facing away from the camera. If you look at the other existing photo, you see the wife with the same light blue dress and the overexposure causing her to look way too white.

Mystery solved and case closed.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum


I'm not saying I know what it is, or even if it's a "spaceman", but I know what it isn't and it certainly isn't the mother. I would have to say that debunking effort is clutching at straws at best.

And, why would the family decide to make public the rest of the photos if that were the case? Makes absolutely no sense at all.


Not all the photos were made public. A few were....not all. And yes, if you look closely, you can tell its a person facing away from the camera with their arm bent (Elbow back). The sun in her shiny brown hair and the overexposure creates the illusion of a "helmet" and as seen in the other photo where the wife is leaning, the overexposure is quite evident.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by WilliamOckham
 






And that is the best and most likely explanation. Overexposure and wife standing behind little girl facing away from the camera. If you look at the other existing photo, you see the wife with the same light blue dress and the overexposure causing her to look way too white.

Mystery solved and case closed.



I dont buy that, case will remain open sorry.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by WilliamOckham
 





Not all the photos were made public. A few were....not all. And yes, if you look closely, you can tell its a person facing away from the camera with their arm bent (Elbow back). The sun in her shiny brown hair and the overexposure creates the illusion of a "helmet" and as seen in the other photo where the wife is leaning, the overexposure is quite evident.



nah i dont see, it. I have seen plenty of overposed photos in my time, and just amy not convinced. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by WilliamOckham
 





Not all the photos were made public. A few were....not all. And yes, if you look closely, you can tell its a person facing away from the camera with their arm bent (Elbow back). The sun in her shiny brown hair and the overexposure creates the illusion of a "helmet" and as seen in the other photo where the wife is leaning, the overexposure is quite evident.



nah i dont see, it. I have seen plenty of overposed photos in my time, and just amy not convinced. Sorry.



Its really really odd that conspiracy theorists and people who are into the fringe, are always willing to believe the unbelievable in the absence of truth, and reluctant to believe the more simple and likely explanations. Its fascinating but cause for worry all at the same time.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
as pointed out earlier this was posted some months ago in a great thread, and is pretty clearly the guy's wife once we all calm down and look at the various pics closely. big storm in a tea cup and a testament to the power of suggestion.
edit on 26-4-2013 by skalla because: typo, ayit



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 





as pointed this was posted some months ago in a great thread, and is pretty clearly the guy's wife once we all calm down and look at the various pics closely. big storm in a tea cup and a testament to the power of suggestion.


Its not clearly the mans wife., go fool a child with that argument.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by skalla
 





as pointed this was posted some months ago in a great thread, and is pretty clearly the guy's wife once we all calm down and look at the various pics closely. big storm in a tea cup and a testament to the power of suggestion.


Its not clearly the mans wife., go fool a child with that argument.


dont get angry, aliens exist, yar. this aint one though, there are better quality versions of these pics else where on ats where you can see the structure of her drss and correllate it with the "space man" as well as examining the angle of her elbow and the slightly fatty bulge on the inner elbow.

your rudeness towards me is quite out of place here, i'm disappointed mr athlon



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


Im not being rude, im telling you where the line is and i have a adult mind and know when a argument fit for a child is being used on me. Sorry nothing personal, but you know now thats where the line is when dealing with me. I have seen plently of over exposed photos, the figure in it isnt due to that.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


my argument is not childish or fit for a child and implying that it is, is an insult to someone who has never been disrespectful to you. excellent analysis of this exists elsewhere and you could do worse than than having a close look at it. just because this pic does not show an alien is not a refutation of their existence, try being a bit more rational, and respectful to those who post politely in your threads too



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join