The Solway Firth spaceman a new theory

reply to post by Arbitrageur

beekeepers and spacemen want to cover their arms.
Beekepers don't want to get bee stings on the arms, and spacemen don't want their arms exposed to the vacuum of space. So why would beekeepers or spacemen wear a sleeveless blue dress with their arms exposed? I would ask why a man would wear a dress at all, but now that it's 2014 I guess that's ok? But back when this picture was taken, spacemen didn't wear dresses.

logical, flawlessly logical. But it still reminds of a spaceman.

bottleslingguy

Soylent Green Is People

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

the girl's shadow is that way because she is sitting down if the mother was standing closer the shadow would be even more apparent.

And the mother's shadow would be heavily foreshortened because of the perspective.

Like I said, just look at the ground near the girl, then look at the ground near the horizon and the "figure". You can see much more of the "top" of the grass near the girl, but as you get out closer to the horizon, you are looking at the ground more edge-on.

The amount of surface grass you see out there near the figure is more compacted, thus a shadow would also be compacted/foreshortened.

gaging where the hips would be if that was her mom it would make her much closer to the little girl and you would definitely see her shadow. Sure geometry might come in handy at this point but just trying to match up the height of the mom's waistline to where she would have to be standing in relation to the girl brings about some strange measurements. If the mom is standing further away from the girl in order to match the scale of the shoulders of the mom, she would have to have legs about two meters tall. And if she is closer then her upper body is too small to make sense. If she is sitting on a horse further away I say you would still see some part of a shadow even foreshortened. look how long this shadow is www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk...

Did you take into account the focal length of the lens?

reply to post by wmd_2008


if it's the mother standing behind her with her back turned toward the camera the dimensions wouldn't make sense that's why the person's theory has the person on a horse farther away. the shoulder width is too small to be closer to the camera and then if you put her farther away she would have to be like eight feet tall. That alone is suspect but I still think you'd see a shadow especially since it is so sunny.

reply to post by foxbarking

3. Really? What does a spaceman look like and you can you refer me to other photographic evidence of actual spacemen who look like this spaceman?

This is the best match I can come up with.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


zeta --

Your images can also be a response to "bottlesguy" as to how the mother could be standing 5+ meters behind the girl and not be 8 feet tall. I your first picture, I can imagine the girl would be somewhere way in the foreground at the bottom of Klaatu's spaceship's ramp.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

if it's the mother standing behind her with her back turned toward the camera the dimensions wouldn't make sense that's why the person's theory has the person on a horse farther away. the shoulder width is too small to be closer to the camera and then if you put her farther away she would have to be like eight feet tall. That alone is suspect but I still think you'd see a shadow especially since it is so sunny.

So lets see you know the exact relationship of the distance to child the mother and the area the mother was standing to the position of the camera and angle of the shot

Im sure the space man in the photo has the power of hypnosis as he has convinced many he is the childs Mother

bottleslingguy
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

if it's the mother standing behind her with her back turned toward the camera the dimensions wouldn't make sense that's why the person's theory has the person on a horse farther away. the shoulder width is too small to be closer to the camera and then if you put her farther away she would have to be like eight feet tall. That alone is suspect but I still think you'd see a shadow especially since it is so sunny.

The perspective makes more sense when you look at this wider view of the area where the picture was taken:

Imagewerx
this is a photo I found that shows exactly how steep the side of the sea defence is that fully explains the perspective seen in the original photo.....

But if you thought the terrain was perfectly flat, I can see why someone might think they need to insert a horse or something. That embankment essentially does the same thing a horse would do, it makes a person standing on top of it look taller.

reply to post by wmd_2008

well some people are saying it's the mother with her back turned and if so then in order to make the shoulder width look correct she'd have to be farther away from the girl but then would have to be extremely tall, that's why the one person has her sitting on a horse. It's pretty simple and doesn't need to get too involved, it's just a picture, weird but a picture. If the "person" behind the girl was as real as the girl it would follow the same rules as the girl leaving a shadow and be of normal proportions.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

then you would without a doubt see a shadow coming down the hill. if you are going to say she was standing over the top then I would argue that messes up the shoulder height/width ratios. farther away means smaller shoulder width but the head height would be lower. that's what is so weird about it, the height/width ratios don't make sense

bottleslingguy
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

well some people are saying it's the mother with her back turned and if so then in order to make the shoulder width look correct she'd have to be farther away from the girl but then would have to be extremely tall, that's why the one person has her sitting on a horse. It's pretty simple and doesn't need to get too involved, it's just a picture, weird but a picture. If the "person" behind the girl was as real as the girl it would follow the same rules as the girl leaving a shadow and be of normal proportions.

Well show us all how you worked your assumptions out because you seem to be the only one that can't seem to see whats been shown on earlier posts to show it was the mother!

ZetaRediculian


This is the best match I can come up with.

None of them have their heads screwed on backwards...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Please also remember that as I've pointed out many many times,the photo was taken from just below the eye level of a five year old child who is sitting down.This would put the camera at about 15-18 inches above ground level,where the effect of perspective is totally different to how adults with their eyes 5 feet or so above the ground are used to seeing things in everyday life.Try it and you'll see what I mean,at that height even the dog will seem to tower over you.Do the same thing at the bottom of your stairs and the dog could look as if it's legs are 4 feet long.

reply to post by Imagewerx

Good point.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

then you would without a doubt see a shadow coming down the hill.

If it wasn't hidden by the little girls head, yes you'd see a shadow. But you can't see it through her head.

if you are going to say she was standing over the top then I would argue that messes up the shoulder height/width ratios. farther away means smaller shoulder width but the head height would be lower. that's what is so weird about it, the height/width ratios don't make sense

This statement is totally without basis. The little girls shoulders are wider than her mothers, which is exactly what you'd expect when a smaller subject is closer to the camera. The mother's head height is explained by the slope and by the perspective of the camera being so close to the ground (notice the perspective is not "looking down" at the little girl, so the camera is low.

I'm responding to the photos below not so much the comment....
I'd like to point out that the below "colored" space man has been added color to offer an explanation. It's not proof that the figure behind the girl is wearing a blue dress.

Also, the "space man" is clearly not the girl bending down appearing to pick flowers. The girl bending down is much thinner and at first i thought was another child.

I'm not a believer or disbeliever but it appears that some people here are trying to use these 2 photos to put 2 and 2 together and it simply doesn't hold ground.

Either there was someone else there and the father doesn't remember them being there or he's just lying and Kodak used the story as publicity. Or, his story is true.

I'll hold what I believe to myself :-)

_BoneZ_

samuel1990
This was an entire field that had nothing but hills, grass, a father and a daughter.

You left out mother/wife from that sentence, as well as a fourth person:

There's also another shadow to the right of the girl (at left in image), indicating four people were present: the father/photographer, mother, daughter, unknown shadow.

Here are some color-enhanced images:

No matter how many ways the colors are enhanced, the person in the background is still wearing a dress with their back facing the camera. It may not even be the mother. It could be the fourth unknown person. But it's most-definitely a woman with a dress.

No spaceman here.

edit on 18-12-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp

reply to post by SpaceCowboy78


The mother when behind the daughter is out of focus that's why she looks like she does!

SpaceCowboy78
Either there was someone else there and the father doesn't remember them being there or he's just lying and Kodak used the story as publicity. Or, his story is true.

You forgot to mention the viewfinder in the camera was too small to show the mother.

So most likely, his story is true that he didn't see the mother in the viewfinder, and yet she was there anyway, because of the undersized viewfinder.

wmd_2008
Well since his view through the camera would have been like this IT'S HIS WIFE!!!

It adds up.

Doesn't look like a mother, looks like a man. But he could be just her father standing in the background, I am not much familiar with why this is considered extraordinary. Isn't it just a person in white clothes?

Yes looks to me to be an early USAF Stealth aircraft test, it wasn't uncommon for them to fly over populated areas back then and this seems to be the most likely explanation. Case closed.

ImpactoR
Doesn't look like a mother, looks like a man. But he could be just her father standing in the background, I am not much familiar with why this is considered extraordinary. Isn't it just a person in white clothes?

Her FATHER was taking the picture DOH!!!