Monday, July 22, 2013

The Solway Firth Spaceman

What:  A photograph of a young girl, apparently showing a space suited figure, or something similar, in the background.

Basics:  The photograph was taken by Jim Templeton on 23 May, 1964.  Mr. Templeton took the photograph of his daughter at Burgh Marsh, close to Burgh by Sands, Carlisle in Cumbria, near the Solway Coast.  According to some accounts Templeton used a Kodak SLR camera with KodaColor X film; camera settings were quoted as f/16 and 1/100 of a second shutter speed; no information on the lens seems to be available, but a guess of 50 mm would probably be accurate; there is no mention of fill flash.  The photograph was developed by Kodak.

Myth:  When the photographs were returned to Mr. Templeton there appeared to be either a space suited figure, or an alien, standing behind his daughter; Mr. Templeton claimed not to have seen the figure when he took the photograph.  The photograph has been shown extensively by UFO and Alien Encounter believers as proof that the Burgh Marsh area has some "space-time displacement" that allows non-Earth beings to be captured on film, while not being visible to the human eye.

Investigation:  While much has been written about this particular incident, and we congratulate Burgh by Sands on capitalizing on this photograph, we choose to look at it as a skeptic.  As a skeptic the first question I would like to ask is "Why do so many people believe that a standard digital or film camera can capture images invisible to the human eye"?  With that said, let's move on to the photographs:
The Solway Firth Spaceman Photo
Photo with Mother in frame
The second photo is much more interesting to me; due to the direction of the sun, the shadow to the girl's right (your left) cannot be from the father; his shadow would be behind him, and out of frame to the bottom-right.  The shadow could be from a fourth person, their vehicle, or some other unknown object; there is nothing to prove that this is the shadow of something they could not see.

Now, moving on to the photos that I have marked up:
First, let us compare the area marked #1; this shows the collar of the sundress in the photo of the mother, along with her hair hanging forward of her shoulders.  At #2 we have the sleeve of the sun dress.  Also notice the gathered waist of the dress while she is kneeling.  All of these findings exist in the top photo of the "spaceman".  Notice also that the dress is a very light blue, that will wash out to white in the bright light.

Additionally, at "A" we see that the sun is from the girl's right and slightly forward, making her hair on the left side and back of her head very dark; this light and shadow carries through on the "Spaceman".  At "B" we see that the ground is blurry at any distance behind the girl, due to the depth of field (7.23' to 16.2' with given parameters), which places the "Spaceman" figure more than 16 feet behind the girl.

Some have tried to claim that the "Spaceman" is white due to heat, cold, or radiation.  This is not infra-red film; if a person was showing white hot on color film they would be setting fires around them; as to being covered in ice, they would not be standing there like that, and the white would be more uniform.  For those who want to claim the "Spaceman" only shows up due to being radioactive, well, that much glowing would not be limited to the body, but would wash out the entire roll of film!

Conclusion:  This is most likely the mother standing behind the girl after moving around a bit.  She is standing with her back to the camera, and is out of focus due to the depth of field.  She is illuminated by the sun, as seen from the shadowing on her right arm and head.  The dress is gathered at the waist making the outfit seem really tight, while the bright sun has washed out all of the mother to a mostly uniform white, due to the camera settings.

Alternately, if the extra shadow in the kneeling mother photo is another person, then this may be who has wandered behind the girl.  As to Mr. Templeton not seeing the "Spaceman" when he took the shot, I have no doubt; as an amateur photographer I have taken many photos where I was so focused on the subject that I failed to notice other items in the frame until the photos were returned.

I believe this is no more that a shallow depth of field camera setting with a washed out individual in the background!

148 comments:

  1. the back of the spaceman is too muscular to be the mom's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly-its a bald guy scratching his back-and looking to the left-looks like he may have a beard-you can see the skin area where his ear is on the left side of his head where the "mask" is supposed to be.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, if it is the mother than she must workout that back. because that trapezious is pretty built up, just like a football player. and you would've seen a bit of her dress, because it looks like there was some wind that day based on the girl's hair flowing towards her right.

      Delete
    3. I just noticed this: the father supposedly took 2 pics, obviously outside. You can see there is a breeze based on how the girls hair is gently blown forward. Every aspect of the photos are exactly the same from one photo to the next. I don't believe her hair, smile, fingers, dress, and flowers never moved (not even the slightest) especially since the photos were taken outdoors. Her hair would have been blown slightly different, a 5 year old would have moved slightly etc.

      Delete
    4. I just read the reply I typed and I intended to type the number 3 not 2 regardign the number of pics taken.

      Delete
    5. If this is the mom why does her hair not fall down her back like the photo of her in the ground

      Delete
    6. If this is the mom why does her hair not fall down her back like the photo of her in the ground

      Delete
    7. If this is the mom why does her hair not fall down her back like the photo of her in the ground

      Delete
    8. Yeah i agree its literaly a helmet if it was the mother standing back fcing the girl you would see much motr hair then one part of it strung accross the white. The figure is clearly standing forward. Looking at the camera. Seems to even have one hand on his hip as if posing. I do not think this pgoto is a fake due to the time that it was taken, it was very hard to temper with photos and very to figure out if someone has done so. Not to mention tests to see if the photo had been tampered with have recently been taken to prove they have not. And if it is a person in the background. You have to wonder where he got the space suit, much dofferent from the time but much similar to the two spacemen suites that appeared during a highly classified british missile test launch that reportedly stopped the missile launch just second before its launch. Also. To "men in black" have talked to and questioned tempelton about a SECOND spaceman that was never in the original. Very hostile very mean angry men asking about something tempelton had no idea about. Theres a connevtion no fakr here. Theres too much proof to show that this is indeed an extra terrestrial.

      Delete
    9. Yeah i agree its literaly a helmet if it was the mother standing back fcing the girl you would see much motr hair then one part of it strung accross the white. The figure is clearly standing forward. Looking at the camera. Seems to even have one hand on his hip as if posing. I do not think this pgoto is a fake due to the time that it was taken, it was very hard to temper with photos and very to figure out if someone has done so. Not to mention tests to see if the photo had been tampered with have recently been taken to prove they have not. And if it is a person in the background. You have to wonder where he got the space suit, much dofferent from the time but much similar to the two spacemen suites that appeared during a highly classified british missile test launch that reportedly stopped the missile launch just second before its launch. Also. To "men in black" have talked to and questioned tempelton about a SECOND spaceman that was never in the original. Very hostile very mean angry men asking about something tempelton had no idea about. Theres a connevtion no fakr here. Theres too much proof to show that this is indeed an extra terrestrial.

      Delete
    10. +Terraise Legere, what are you talking about?? The person is clearly NOT standing facing the camera, it's clearly the BACK of the RIGHT ARM that is resting on the hip. How on earth can you think it looks like the person is facing forward?????

      Delete
  2. I looked at it again...that is not muscle; her hands are on her hips, forcing her shoulder blades back. I stand by it being her mother.

    Thanks for commenting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I'm sure humans were not very bright in the 60s for their mind to cross the theory that it was actually just his wife.

      Delete
    2. Did you contact the Kodak corporation, if they're still in business as they offered a reward of a lifetime supply of camera film to anyone who could debunk this? I suppose you could ask them for a digital camera as film is rapidly becoming obsolete however I wouldn't hold my breath on it. They'll have the last word of course, on your validity & the digital camera, lol.

      Delete
    3. Coming to this late, but if I recall correctly, Kodak's reward was only for someone proving that the photo was tampered with (as they said it was not). If Virgil's theory is correct - and it looks pretty convincing - then the photo was indeed not tampered with.

      Delete
    4. Okay Well There Is 2 Questiond That Leave Me Stuck.. Please Explain If You Can Or Assumptions That You May Feel.

      What Could That 3rd Shadow Be If Its Not The Fathers?

      And Why Out Of The 3 Pictures Taken Of The Same Frame Only Consist Of 1 Showing The "Spaceman" ?

      Delete
    5. Okay Well There Is 2 Questiond That Leave Me Stuck.. Please Explain If You Can Or Assumptions That You May Feel.

      What Could That 3rd Shadow Be If Its Not The Fathers?

      And Why Out Of The 3 Pictures Taken Of The Same Frame Only Consist Of 1 Showing The "Spaceman" ?

      Delete
  3. Have a look at this link...http://i.imgur.com/Py7ZI9i.jpg

    it's much more clearer who the "spaceman" is. You were right, it's the mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a better image for analysis! Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Even with the explanation above, I couldn't see it was the mother at all. And then I clicked on the link and now I feel really daft for missing something so obvious. Have to say I'm a bit disappointment, though - Id have loved it to be a spaceman. :0)

      Delete
    3. The arm looks a lot thicker though than the mother's that you see in the second image.

      Delete
    4. I was hoping it was something mysterious. Of course the guy was right saying no one else was around. No one but his wife and daughter. Who knows, maybe the mom is an alien.

      Delete
    5. I was hoping it was something mysterious. Of course the guy was right saying no one else was around. No one but his wife and daughter. Who knows, maybe the mom is an alien.

      Delete
  4. If it's the mother, then she is very tall. Somebody a lot smarter than me at math would have to figure this out, but I just don't see it being the mother based on the angle and distance of the camera from the little girl. I mean look at the photo and guess how far she/it would be from the girl based on normal people and then judge the height of the figure. Either she/it is standing on something or they are 8-10 feet tall. Can someone do the math on angle, distance, and height of the figure? If you could do that, and it checks out, then you have your smoking gun. Not based on shadows and changing the color of the picture. That's what the conspiracy folks do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://i.imgur.com/Py7ZI9i.jpg

      Delete
    2. The picture was taken from a squatting position of the girl and it was aimed UP a hill , anyone looks taller when they are behind and uphill of someone smaller taken from a low angle.

      Delete
    3. Not that tall Peter... no way... even if the "tip" of the grass was where her feet would be, that's insanely disportationate to her upper body... but her feet wouldn't be at the "top" of the grass line unless she was way far out... so her feet would be even lower to the ground.

      I just want to see someone remake the photo... not with the "appearance of a spaceman"... just the proportions of the people. I just don't see how a person would appear to "tiny and small" yet be so damn tall at the same time (the "wife" behind the girl")

      Delete
    4. I agree Peter B. If the little girl is squatting or sitting on her butt, anyone would look taller standing behind her. I think he caught them at a certain angle and thought it'd be amusing to say he never saw it. You know how people always want to be "the one" to prove the existence of extra terrestrials.

      Delete
    5. It is fun to imagine it was a spaceman.... but after other pic is shown it’s clearly the mother

      Delete
  5. Ted, it is not that she is really tall, but that the ground is sloping uphill fairly steeply, putting her much higher than the girl. The math would be really hard to do without knowing the actual depth of field of the photo. Shadows are not "conspiracy theory" but can be used forensically to determine many things. I believe when the rise of the hill is taken into account, the heights work out correctly. Thanks for commenting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This...
      Is exactly why you're wrong. Because its uphill and because of the size of the "spaceman," it would have to be a child in order to be this size.
      Also, this entire thing has been attempted over and over again with similar cameras of the time, if its a hoax or an accident then it really is one in a million.

      You also ignore part 2 of the story, a missile launch was canceled because of a video of 2 white, spacesuited men running across the launch platform, the missile in question was built just a few miles from where the first "spaceman" was spotted. Keep in mind the second part of this story was documented by the British ministry of defence, a source you can't as easily dismiss as a man and his family taking pictures. The BMoD would have no reason to delay a multi-million dollar, nuclear weapons defence program just to make a hoax.

      Delete
    2. Uh...no. The size of the person in the photo is determined by the distance from lens to person, and the distance is not apparent due to the depth of field - outside the focal range for that lens depth perception is useless. It's the mother, uphill, but not very far behind, her daughter. If people have tried to duplicate it and cannot come close they either don't know what they are doing, or don't want to disprove it. Photographs do not mimic what the eye sees when it comes to depth and size; this difference in what the eye sees and what the camera records is the basis of photographic art.

      Second, what you speak of is the Blue Streak Missile/Woomera Launch Facility Incident...I did not mention it because that is so obviously two people in the protective suits used on launch pads...the fact that a missile launch was aborted, two days later, in Australia, due to two facility workers on the pad (who did everything they could to keep from getting fired, including denying they were there), is not proof of a "spaceman" on the Solway Firth.

      If you want to believe it is a spaceman, that is your prerogative, but everything from photographic to situational evidence says otherwise...

      Delete
    3. He took 3 pictures just of his daughter which were the exact same photo despite the "space man" which could of been a ghost who knows but its a fact that forging that picture back then isn't something a regular guy could've done and it being a forgery wouldn't explain the men that confronted he who took the pictures being hostile because he denied seeing two figures which is reportedly what happened so you have to ask yourself why soul two men claiming to be sent by "her majesty" be there and how would the father have had the knowledge and equipment to forge a photograph at that time

      Delete
    4. Virgil, it makes no difference that the girl the girl is squatting and the mother is walking up hill, it's all about the PROPORTIONALITY of the amount of the mother's body you see above the girls head vs how much would be below it. The "mother" would have to be much taller or standing on something to have so as much of her body showing above the girls head. You can SEE where the ground would be that she is standing on, and you can see the relative size of ALL the flowers, the ones right near the girl as well as the ones WAAAY in the distance, and it's not rocket science for anyone to tell that the proportions aren't right.

      Delete
  6. Virgil, I appreciate what you are saying, but the hill is not that steep and it's actually angled more down from left to right than ascending up from behind the girl. I'm thinking that at 16 feet, we should see less of her back than we do. Also, getting back to the shadow, conspiracy people are all the time are using shadows to claim UFOs, moon bases, and beings on Mars. That's how they get on TV. My question is, why isn't there a shadow on the right side of the mother's body? The sun is on the left, so there should be some kind of shadow on her right side, or at the very least something on the ground to her right. I've seen washout before, and it usually affects more than just a defined person or object. Usually. Again, I don't buy into the spaceman theory. My guess is that the man took a picture and didn't forward the film correctly and overexposed a frame.

    Thank you Virgil for the response. Good stuff. Still think somebody needs to do the math. Even if its a guess. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would not be able to see the mother's shadow. Look at the angle that it's at on the girl. It's still behind her. That means it would be out of the shot, because the girl's head is in the way and because of how short the shadow is. That means the photo was taken at the suns near highest point.
      Look at the size of the flowers in the girls hand. They are pretty small, now check out the grass all the way back to the hill crest. The mother is not standing that far away.

      Delete
  7. Ted, that is an interesting theory! In the second photo there is a line that could be from a bad frame advance, which could lend more credit to your theory. Your explanation is as good as mine; as long as we all agree that it is not some invisible to the naked eye spaceman, then we remain sane! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I'm having a problem with believing in spacemen. Man has been on this planet for thousands of years, and it's hard to believe ancient man has had interaction with beings from outer space and the only evidence we have now of modern visitation is shadows and fuzzy pictures. Just not buying it.

      Have a good day Virgil!

      Delete
  8. It's a man running in the opposite direction he has a bald head and wears a sweatshirt with a hood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The elbow is quite obviously pointing towards us and in the position of someone jogging. He's probably going at a fair lick which explains why he's only in the one picture. Also if the ground drops away behind the girl then it stands to reason he would disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah It's the Mother LOL now I've seen that other pic ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Garfield, WOW dude, so you go from being so adamant and sure about it being "a guy with a bald head and sweatshirt with hood running in the opposite direction and can even surmise how fast he's running, to suddenly completely changing positions and agreeing it's the mother????
      Wow so much for any credibility on YOUR part.

      Delete
  11. It's the mother - they've been picking flowers, she was bent down picking them and stood up and put her hand on her lower back probably because her back felt a bit stiff just as the photo was taken, then maybe bent down again.

    That's all it is, the husband and mother didn't recognise her in the photo (if they truly didn't recognise it was her) because the colour was washed out.

    So simple and obvious an explanation yet people still want to cling to the idea it's an invisible spaceman who is only visible on film and who materialised for some inexplicable reason in an un interesting part of the world for no apparent reason.

    Some of the idiots who believe it's a spaceman would still be burning people at the stake for being witches if we gave them an inch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good! Your are so correct; humans have the capacity to believe just about anything...that is why it is so important that we look for the truth in all things!

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm skeptic about the myth of the alien, but regarding your theory, I find very hard to believe that the mother's dress washed out to white in that way due to a strong sun light. I'm sure we would still be able to see some blue below the arm and distinguish the color of the skin, and that figure is clearly white. What nobody is telling is that Mr. Templeton took 3 photos in one shot of the little girl and only the second photo shows the figure in the back, the other two are identical but without the "spaceman". That's why Kodak was so interested and asked for the negatives to Mr. Templeton. What I found very interesting is the other picture, with the mother kneeling, it seems that there was four persons there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'll throw my hat in the ring on this one. Being both a professional photographer (pre-digital & post) and professional graphic designer, I'd have to agree (although half-heartedly) that the details of the dress create an interesting proposition. The mother is obviously picking the flowers for the girl to hold. The photo could indicate another person as well.

    My biggest issue is the exposure. There would be no reason whatsoever for Mrs. Templeton to be overexposed in a blue dress while the sky and clouds are still easily discernible. The first thing usually blown out in a photograph is the sky. The indistinguishable nature of the skin-to-dress color-ratio is bizarre to say the least. Also, the shadows under the shoulder-blades indicate a matching pattern with the shadows on the girl. The size of the "persons" arms have nothing to do with whether it could be the mother or not. Overexposure can create that specific effect on skin. The slope of the shoulder is strange, however.

    After taking it into photoshop and lightroom, the person is the brightest object in the entire photo.

    I imagined however, that the mom, after picking the flowers and handing them to the girl, gets up to stretch; has her hand on her lower back and is walking away. Again, the strangest thing to me is not the mysterious person as much as why this person is ridiculously overexposed.

    I like the jogger theory. It also explains the reason why the father shot multiple photos of the same scene. Later, he might not have remembered, or even because he was looking in the viewfinder, missed the person completely. It kind of also looks like the other (left) hand is coming up just at the edge of the hair. (Like a jogger) The person doesn't look like they're wearing a space suit at all, IMHO. Looks like they have a "V" cut shirt with a low neckline. You can even see a slight shirt-line on the left arm running almost vertical. The line in the middle of the back is the crease created by pushing your arms back while flexing. Hair is shifting to the right slightly, but in line with the motion of a jogger in full gallop.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In the pic with the person in the background it semms to be the mother, but was the mother wearing a head scarf?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Replies
    1. Yes ..it would have been unusual in those days!

      Delete
  18. I just saw this on a show on the Science Channel. Very good analysis. I believe you're quit correct. I do happen to believe in UFOs. But 99.999% of all that written and produced is BS. Thanks for your analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I appreciate how much people have responded to this. As time permits I hope to analyze a few other stories.

      Delete
  19. Virgil, you seem to be so sure that your theory is correct and that this is for sure no "spaceman". When anyone comes up with a theory that suggests something supernatural you quickly dismiss it but when someone comes up with a completely different theory on what it could be but first agreeing that its not a "spaceman" you seem to entertain the idea as a possibility. Why so quick to dismiss those with supernatural theories and so quick to take interest in theories that suggest its not supernatural?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if it is an alien, I guess they have a great sense of humor as they came all the way to earth just to photobomb Jim Templeton... :-)

      To answer your question seriously: Because it is not a spaceman.

      Delete
    2. With that logic, we should seriously entertain the idea it was Bigfoot in drag and he had the nuclear codes. That''s why he was running.
      Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Bigfoot with nuclear codes or spacemen are not the simplest explanation. The one he presented here is.

      Delete
  20. We don't any but those pictures, there must have been others from that shoot? I think the "spaceman" is Mum with a sweater on, and very likely a scarf, it may even be billowing from a breeze lending to the puffy filled spacesuit look. We don't know what Mum looks like on that day other than a partial body shot and a few things about they style of dress she wore, but nothing more about her other accoutrements. And the light and shadow are correct as well as the incline of the hill etc. Hensley is a myopic idiot!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Templeton, knows... he knows the truth, I'm sure Mum did too, it's so obvious. I hope the story about the MIBs' leaving him to walk back is true, it so fitting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's clearly just a grey haired jogger with a light coloured top on going by. Possibly an ageing athlete of some kind. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I repeat cluelesscarolinagirl's point. A jogger? In 1964? Really? Thanks Virgil for bringing this up, and thanks for the FIRST person who posted the link (3agle 3yes), as everyone else simply copied. I've been searching the internet for an explanation ever since I heard about this, and finally I have found a plausible, undoubtedly true solution! Thanks again Virgil and 3agle 3yes :)

      Delete
  23. There have been accounts where photos that are being printed end up getting images from other pictures and blemishes etc. I think this is one of those cases.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you for posting this, I read this blog post many months ago but came back to it as I saw another new tv show based on this story. Its clearly the mother, thats what all signs point towards, the fact he did not mention or none of these tv shows ever show the photo of the mother it makes it easier to believe its an alien. I believe there are aliens, but I am also a skeptic and I want proof of aliens to be real proof and this isnt it.

    If youre seeing this as an alien after seeing the photo proof that the mother was there who was never mentioned in any of the stories I have seen or read, then youre the problem with the alien research community.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't beleive it to be an alien... and i don't understand how people really think it is... however i don't think you have enough data to 100% conclude that it is the sundress of the mother.

    ReplyDelete
  26. WHAT A POOR ANALYSIS!!! I hate when people force the lies and work hard to debunk strong ufo evidences. What if this were a "Ghost" silhouette??? "Now that's a ghost, with no doubts", but when it comes to alien/ufo theres ALWAYS something to debunk simple because human has to much Ego to accept that we are NOT alone and that we never ever have been. This was not the mother, she and her husband reported this to Kodak and they couldn't give them a good answer. Where is her hair in the photo? What? She got 50 pounds in one day? So everything in the image, the colours, brightness, etc is right but we couldn't see the hair? The dress moving with the wind? But a complete white suit?? People listen what they want to hear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is not infrared film, and it was not destroyed by radiation. Our retinas see much more than film can record, with more "pixels" and more color. Film is NOT going to capture something that the eye could not see, only what our mind did not notice. If there had been an alien standing there, the photographer would have noticed it. His mind ignored the person in the viewfinder because it was a known object, the Mother. The only strong UFO evidence here is if you accept that Kodak film can capture something that the human eye cannot see...it is not a ghost, either! :-) There may be alien species in the Universe, but this is not a photo of them...

      Delete
    2. Virgil I am very skeptical of UFO theories but I think it can easily be argued that yes, it is possible for Kodak film to capture things human eyes can't see. imagine this, the aliens are using an invisibility cloak which like most human inventions, has a frequency on which it keeps turning on and off, if this is a high frequency, the mind will never see the person there, but a camera may well just take a photo at the very moment the cloak was off, this would also explain the overexposure problem because it would've only been there for a fraction of a second and the suit was emitting a lot of energy, so much that in that small fraction of a second, it emitted enough to be so overexposed. bring to mind taking pictures of a ceiling fan or of one of those old computer screens. I'm not saying this is undoubtedly an alien, the mother theory seems much much much more likely, but it's simply best to have an open mind. What I find extremely puzzling however, is the fact that the mother seems to have gained 50 pounds in the shot, her arms are much chubbier than in the other picture, she seems to be a very sleek person, yet in the photo, she looks like an overweight woman. I still doubt it really was the mother as I expect the photographer would have remembered if his wife had been behind his daughter during the time he was taking these pictures. either way, your explanation seems much more sane than any other supernatural explanation.

      Delete
    3. First of all, debunking an alien theory doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in aliens. Second of all, there are versions of this picture that have the brightness toned down pretty far and you can see the mother's hair, blue dress, arm, everything. Third of all, on that particular camera, only 70% of the actual photo could be seen through the view finder so he would have not been able to see the mother in the shot or really anything besides the little girl. Forth, as someone mentioned before, the mother was kneeling down and picking flowers and must have just gotten up for that one shot, didn't realize she was in the frame, and then bent back down or moved out of frame. Fifth, have you ever seen "the dress"? You know, the one where no one could decide if it was blue and black or white and gold? Similar thing happening here. Sixth, I have noticed people saying she looks bigger in the "spaceman" photo, and as someone obsessed with modeling, I'll let you know about angles and focus. If a photo is angled upwards, the people in that photo are going to look a lot heavier and taller than if the photo had been taken downwards (which is a more "flattering" angle). Also, the person in the background is out of focus which will obviously add more weight because there's no definition. She's also a mother and while she may not be overweight, she probably isn't thin. Not to mention that the camera adds weight because it's a flat image.

      Delete
    4. First of all, debunking an alien theory doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in aliens. Second of all, there are versions of this picture that have the brightness toned down pretty far and you can see the mother's hair, blue dress, arm, everything. Third of all, on that particular camera, only 70% of the actual photo could be seen through the view finder so he would have not been able to see the mother in the shot or really anything besides the little girl. Forth, as someone mentioned before, the mother was kneeling down and picking flowers and must have just gotten up for that one shot, didn't realize she was in the frame, and then bent back down or moved out of frame. Fifth, have you ever seen "the dress"? You know, the one where no one could decide if it was blue and black or white and gold? Similar thing happening here. Sixth, I have noticed people saying she looks bigger in the "spaceman" photo, and as someone obsessed with modeling, I'll let you know about angles and focus. If a photo is angled upwards, the people in that photo are going to look a lot heavier and taller than if the photo had been taken downwards (which is a more "flattering" angle). Also, the person in the background is out of focus which will obviously add more weight because there's no definition. She's also a mother and while she may not be overweight, she probably isn't thin. Not to mention that the camera adds weight because it's a flat image.

      Delete
  27. It's scary to know that this is even debated. Seriously?! It's painfully obvious that it's the mother in the photo. Or, maybe it's just the implant they gave me, controlling my perception, so that I cannot see mr. spaceman. Thus allowing me to simply drone on, completely unaware, as they continue preparations to subjugate us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.. the only reason I saw a spaceman at all is that it was suggested. Once you look at it closely I can't even see a spaceman at all. I see a woman with dark hair and a hat n a sleeveless dress with her back to the camera and hands on her hips. Anyone who had done any photography gets the perspective and exposure. People will believe what they want... in spite of common sense. Interesting that the third photo taken that day was never released. I'd wager good money this photo shows the woman's haircut and hat to be identical to the person in the the photo.

      Delete
  28. It's a shame the girl's head is in the way of showing the dress.... perhaps spacemen where sleeveless dresses and have deformed elbows... I suppose anything is possible if you just want to believe!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't agree. Clearly the mother's dress is light blue, and you can even see that it's a patterned dress. Looks to be plaid or a Bengal Stripe type design, possibly Awning. You can also see that she has medium-length brown hair. Whatever that is in the background behind the girl is clearly wearing something form-fitted, it's straight white, and the stance is one of a masculine connotation, not female. The right arm is also more muscular, and you can clearly see upper body strength like that of a man in good shape. The head...that's perplexing. There's something off about it. If that were the mother in the background you would be able to see her face, or even her hair if viewed from the rear. Instead what we see is something grayish, and it certainly looks like some sort of helmet. The line in the cloth coming down from the left shoulder is too difficult to really discern with any accuracy as to what that might be, but my initial thought was that it looks to be an overlapping flap and part of the helmet. In the end I'm not sure what that is, but I do know it's not the mother.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The girth of the arm of the "space man" is huge compared to the mother's arm, so you are definitely not correct.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In addition, if the mother is around 5'6" she would need to be standing on at least a 2 foot stool to be that high up. Your "debunk" attempt is not very scientific (but then most chronic debunkers rarely use real science).

    ReplyDelete
  32. James Roberts: You are entitled to your opinion, and I let people post what they think on here, but your last post was insulting, so I feel I must reply. There is no "science" whatsoever in what you have posted; just opinion. My post attempts to address the issue of how this photo would be the mother, when we analyze it with the science behind photography. The size of her arm is due to the shot taking her bicep at an angle, along with a slight blurring from the "wash-out" of a wide aperture shot. She also appears tall due to the fact that she is uphill, coupled with the angle of the shot.

    The two points that you have made (the girth of the arm and the height) are both easily explained with the science of photography: lens length, aperture, angle, etc. Neither of those two things require any extra-ordinary explanation, and many photographs contain similar issues...

    Contrary to what you may think, "debunking" is all about the science. "Debunkers" use science to explain the natural occurrence of what others choose to accept, on faith, as extra-ordinary; I would say you have it reversed over who uses science and who does not.

    True science uses the "scientific method"; and "scientific method" requires a number of things, none of which are belief in the supernatural!

    I hope this helps clear up any confusion over my use of science...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm unable to dispute your theory but I'm quite certain that if Kodak (the recognised expert people who manufactured the film) couldn't explain it, we probably can't either. Any conjecture on this subject is a pointless misuse of time and effort. It reminds me of one unusually bright but furiously cold mid afternoon in 1947...,,,,,,,see what I mean?

      Delete
  33. Ridiculous attempt at debunking. I'm not saying I believe it's a spaceman or an alien. I'm just saying that this particular attempt at debunking failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone with a handle "sinister" probably won't be taken seriously.

      Delete
  34. I just wanted to let you know, I think this is an excellent debunking. I have used it in the many discussions I have had regarding this alleged "Spaceman."

    Very little of the arguments against you make any sense. People keep commenting that the mom must be REALLY tall in order to stand that high up over her daughter. Her daughter is a small girl who is sitting on the ground. Looking at the picture in which the mother is on the ground, you can see that the hill actually is not steep at all. If anything the stronger argument would be that it is too short to be the mother.

    As far as the math goes, as no one really knows how far behind the girl the MOM is standing, the math would be impossible to calculate.

    I think you did a great job.

    Oh and in regards to the Kodak reward, the reward was not to prove that it was not a spaceman. The reward was to prove that the picture itself was a fake, ie doctored in some way. As it is not doctored, the reward would be impossible to retrieve.

    I like to believe in paranormal explanations myself. I have an open mind about those things. But there are examples in the world a lot more intriguing than this silly picture which is quite obviously the mother. Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think the one thing everyone is missing is the wind. You can see there is a stiff wind blowing in the photo, even at ground level, because her hair is pushed forward by it. On the top of the hill behind her, the wind would be even stronger. This is where her figure is standing (which is why she appears above and behind her head). The sundress, loosely bloused at the top and cinched at the waist as most sundresses would be for that period, is inflated by the wind, giving the blouson top a bulbous appearance. Either that or a person wearing a button down oxford which would also catch the wind. From the evidence presented here in the article and the wind factored in, I think this one is thoroughly debunked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah guess thats why she wouldve tied her hair like that :o

      Delete
  36. I came to the same conclusion before finding your site. My first look and I thought it was a person running away from the camera with a hat on. The "spaceman's" arm on the right of the image is a right arm bent at the elbow in a running/bent position away from the viewer. At some point the father figured it out. Hence no follow-up with the Mom or daughter. =Debunked. The Mom is left out of a lot of versions for a reason. She is the spaceman. She was running, trying to get out of the frame before he took the picture. She didn't make it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What was the exact model of the camera?

    ReplyDelete
  38. i do not think it was the mother look at the diffrences of the hair length

    ReplyDelete
  39. i do not think it was the mother look at the diffrences of the hair length

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ok people... nuff said... it's the mother! And if you think otherwise, then you are the spaceman ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm unable to dispute your theory but I'm quite certain that if Kodak (the recognised expert people who manufactured the film) couldn't explain it, we probably can't either. Any conjecture on this subject is a pointless misuse of time and effort. It reminds me of one unusually bright but furiously cold mid afternoon in 1947...,,,,,,,see what I mean?

      Delete
  42. there were dumb conspiracy theorists back then too......

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Unfortunately, there are a couple of significant holes in this theory. Sadly, they don't much matter in light of its biggest problem: the fact that this explanation was plagiarized from identical interpretations on other websites. It's pretty slippery, trying to pass off another's earlier work as one's own. I suppose that's what we can expect when it comes to this sort of lame topic...

    ReplyDelete
  45. I had played around with the photo myself and could very obviously see the woman's arms and where the right sleeve meets the arm. There's also a bit of bunching of the fabric on her back. I think the woman is washed out because the camera is focusing on the girl, who is the closer object, causing the woman to be blurred. She seems to have a light blue hat on as well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. /facepalm

    people still believe this pic is authentic?

    the arm bending angle itself is enough to debunk this photo.

    seriously, case closed on this thing!

    ReplyDelete
  47. /facepalm

    people still believe this pic is authentic?

    the arm bending angle itself is enough to debunk this photo.

    seriously, case closed on this thing!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Beekeeper Photobomb? Is there an apiary nearby?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I always thought the photo was strange but just recently saw it zoomed and realized we were definitely viewing the back. When I first read your analysis I thought the person looked too big to be the mother but then the other link makes it painfully obvious what's going on and I feel really sorry for the people debating with you because they are clearly lying to themselves just because this has been one of their proofs for so long about the paranormal and extraterrestrial that they can't let it go. Kudos...

    ReplyDelete
  50. As a woman who was alive in this era, its so apparent to me, I cannot believe anyone thought this was ever a spaceman. I don;t know who the woman is, but its the back of a woman. Yes her shoulderblades are sticking out a bit. There is a strap of something dangling down the back, most likely attached to some glasses. Ant the hair is in a french roll with what they called "tipping" back then or it might be one of the triangles so popular. It also looks like she has on a sundress, which is why the shoulderblades are so prominent. Debunked!!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Its either a foreign body, who found himself seen by humans, he hypnotised the family, erased that certain span data from total cranial memory.
    Or else, the height of that very little girl at that instant would be enough to mathematically verify the height of so-called "spaceman like mother " with some worst conditions being applied (like keeping the shortest distance, assuming her maximum height and supposing the right uphill)!
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  52. By observing head(it's not front face of spaceman!),sleeves, scapula, hand positions and collar, we able to find that it's not spaceman.It's Annie, wife of photographer as she worn pale blue dress without sleeve at that time. Right hand position, scapula and head shows she standing with her back towards the camera.
    Photographer's angle( photo shows that photographer has taken photo by sitting), overexposure(Annie's dress looking white) created illusion as a spaceman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. then what happened to the moms here? wheres here blonde hair?

      Delete
  53. if its the mom, what happened to her hair

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm unable to dispute your theory but I'm quite certain that if Kodak (the recognised expert people who manufactured the film) couldn't explain it, we probably can't either. Any conjecture on this subject is a pointless misuse of time and effort. It reminds me of one unusually bright but furiously cold mid afternoon in 1947...,,,,,,,see what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  55. What is your basis for claiming to be a photographic expert, the only person who authenticate or debunk the validity of this photo? You yourself say you're an "amateur photographer". A number of ACTUAL photographic experts have confirmed that the photo is a genuine photographic image, that hasn't been altered, and that they can't explain it. If you have no actual expertise in how photographic images are captured on film, then your "debunking" can be discarded.

    ReplyDelete
  56. What is your basis for claiming to be a photographic expert, the only person who authenticate or debunk the validity of this photo? You yourself say you're an "amateur photographer". A number of ACTUAL photographic experts have confirmed that the photo is a genuine photographic image, that hasn't been altered, and that they can't explain it. If you have no actual expertise in how photographic images are captured on film, then your "debunking" can be discarded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I would like to clarify one misunderstanding: An amateur photographer may know just as much as a "photographic expert"; the difference in title has only to do with money. Professional photographers get paid for photography, and while I have sold some work, it is not enough to put me in the Professional category. On the other hand, amateurs may be just as knowledgeable, but do not get paid for their photographic works. So, the difference in Professional and Amateur photographers is simply whether or not they do it for a living, not their knowledge level...

      Delete
    2. Another clarification that should be added is that two of the three statements attributed to "photographic experts" are irrelevant - namely, that the photo is a genuine photographic image and that it hasn't been altered. Unless I completely misread you, Virgil, you're not claiming anything different. The only difference is in explanation.

      Delete
    3. You are correct...I am not claiming that it has been altered in any way, only that the image can be rationally explained without "spacemen"...There may even be other life out there, but this is not proof of it...

      Delete
    4. Virgil, why do so many people keep referring to there being THREE pictures taken by the father, but you only show TWO here?? Is there another picture that you did not include?

      Delete
  57. What would a spaceman be doing there and surely aliens do not look just like humans. Cannot be genuine surely but I do not believe that is his wife. Saying that not far from there one of the strangest incidents in my lifetime occurred some years back when I was following on foot a quite tall man in a similar completely open marshy area when inexplicably he vanished completely into thin air. I have revisited the area several times and still cannot find a rational explanation as to what could have happened. Odd things do occur and this man could have been telling the truth unlikely as it would appear.

    ReplyDelete
  58. What I see is the back of a man's head, looking at a dome shaped screen.
    http://i.imgur.com/y3hmLut.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  59. Note: I used to think the angle or lean of the background figure was most odd. But if you look at the angle that the picture was taken at the character is not leaning as much as it first appears. | Note also: the background feature that can be seen in both images. | Further, the left image could actually be rotated another 1 degrees anti-clockwise, making the background figure even more upright. | And what I thought was a steep hill is not. These are my observations.
    http://i.imgur.com/rvtaSYj.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  60. http://i.imgur.com/Py7ZI9i.jpg How can photoshoping an original photo ever explain (debunk) anything? It's like saying every UFO picture is the real deal! I too have experience in photography although I'm no expert. Your explanation of the SOLWAY FIRTH ASTRONAUT is inaccurate and the picture is wrong for various reasons. 1. According to the father "there wasn’t anyone else around while they were there" and 2. The photoshop picture shows a light blue top with bare flesh showing arms. 3. The original picture shows the "spaceman" figure over exposed, which it cannot be because the little girl is not - this is a glaring contradiction. 4. Her mother would need extremely long legs even at that distance from the camera. All apart from the fact that no other person was seen by her father when taking the series of three picture of his daughter. If anyone cares to read the full story of this account they will find it has very sinister undertones that also cannot be (or fail to be) explained away so easily. Unfortunately this "debunk" is debunked!

    ReplyDelete
  61. In the opening paragraphs the exposure is quoted as 1/100 at f16. Now f16 is a small aperture which would give a reasonably deep depth of field

    ReplyDelete
  62. Kodacolor X had an ASA of 64 so the stated exposure might be a little underexposed. An aperture of f5.6 might be nearer the mark. It was commented that the camera was new to Mr. Templeton.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It is perfectly reasonable for the young girl to be correctly exposed but for her background to be overexposed, indeed that is fairly normal in outdoor portraiture and often fill-in flash is used to compensate. Most SLR cameras have always had some form of weighted metering to allow the right part of the scene to be correctly exposed; on more recent DSLRs this area can be adjusted at will.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Looking now at the horizon. Assuming the two published pictures were taken from around the same spot and the girl didn't move much then one can see that on the first shot the horizon slopes one way and on the second the opposite. Not holding the camera straight is a very common failing. Simply Photoshopping it by a few degrees restores the background figure to vertical. One does not need to invent poorly supported models to explain this.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Since when was a case closed based on probabilities? Clearly what one sees is not what others do.

    ReplyDelete
  66. still arguing about this in 2016 LOL

    its her mother guys, case closed

    http://i.imgur.com/Py7ZI9i.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ummmmm, no. The clothes and shape and length of sleeves arent even the same. I don't believe its the mom.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ummmmm, no. The clothes and shape and length of sleeves arent even the same. I don't believe its the mom.

    ReplyDelete
  69. A very disappointing debunking. The premise of the 'debunking' here is that of course the people involved lied. We don't know that. The premise of the mystery is that they did not The premise of the whole debunking industry is that everyone lied...The premise of those intrigued by these phenomonon is that if just one of the millions people stories that are unexplained we have a mystery. The premise of science is that we pursue knowledge because our current knowledge is imperfect - instead of guessing that people have lied, please focus on either proving that scientifically by engaging with them or prove that the photo could not be what it seems; rather than guessing, and wrapping up a guess as a debunk. Please get scientific and accurate or leave the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  70. OF COURSE it's the mother!
    Cameras back in those days were very flighty, difficult to get a perfect photo -
    doesn't anyone else recall the 'exposure' adjustments, etc. on those old things??
    We are looking at a photo from over 50 YEARS AGO, in this day and age of digital
    cameras, phones, etc., where we can see exactly what we're taking a picture of before we do it.
    Wasn't so easy back then.
    And to make matters more intricate - it was VERY MUCH of an incline, Mr. Templeton was
    taking the photo from a low point, the exposure was off, it was a very sunny day, along with some wind, Mrs. Templeton's dress was a very light color, she was moving her head obviously in that wind creating a lot of blurring, and there you have all the elements to make an odd and strange photo.
    Thank you for clarifying one of the most mystifying photos ever!

    ReplyDelete
  71. It's strange that some do not believe that the camera can greatly distort
    an image, especially a background image, and especially when taken from a
    low viewpoint.
    Which is exactly why the mother appears more 'bulky' than normal.
    It's her!

    ReplyDelete
  72. 'Rational explanations' are all fine and dandy but that does not make them evidence - thus we still have a problem here. Come up with a better conclusion or admit defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is my own article on a new blog I started (just self-disclosing so it's not in question) and it shows conclusively that this is the mother. I promise it will be worth the read. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. https://noneofthismakessense.blogspot.com.tr/2017/01/the-solway-firth-spaceman.html

    ReplyDelete
  74. Once you believe something you see is something else it can't be unseen. So what's your point again?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have a really hard time accepting what you think. I just want to point out some things, the mom isnt wearing anything with a hoodie and I really doubt the father forgot that the mother was behind the daughter that fast and explain the other one spotted during the launch, and don't say the guys didn't want to get fired because I really doubt they would make up something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. It definitely looks like the right elbow is of someone or something standing with their back to the camera

    ReplyDelete
  77. You didn't debunk anything ... Your explanation really doesn't explain this space person in the back!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Why do you boast debunked? Merely your speculation! Bah

    ReplyDelete
  79. Has anyone ever considered that it could be a person in a bee-keeper suit? At that time, the full body - wired face suits existed.

    ReplyDelete
  80. What I want to know is how can it be there and "not there"? When you've figured that out I'll come back for some more.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  82. We as humans have a need for believing in "The Other", in the supernatural. We want to believe. As much as our brain makes thing out of patterns. All has to make sense, or it must be other Worldly. Anatomically this is the back of someone. Muscular arms. Unless exposure has expanded the shape of the mother. Has anyone tried to create the same photo, with a lady dressed the same with different exposures. That would most likely be interesting. Yet we have all had odd things happen to us that cannot be explained by normal thinking. I know I have. The World is so much more than we can conceive or perceive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I don't have a need to believe anything or do I want to believe anything. Truth is stranger than fiction and if everything made sense we wouldn't need science to figure it all out. So, David, that really answers the first part of your post - if not all of it.

      Delete
  83. Consensus explanation: invisible alien spaceman... with a bad back?

    But seriously, having begun to dabble in serious photography I've got some idea of the artifacts and distortions that can pop up - and that's with modern technology. As such, I'm inclined to agree with the wife-in-the-background hypothesis. As the original post mentions, it's easy to get carried away in the moment when trying to get that perfect photo; perhaps Mrs. Templeton suddenly stood up before the shot was taken? 1/100 shutter speed is quite fast after all. Jim Templeton claimed his wife was behind him at the time but memory is a funny thing and you never be 100% sure.

    Either way I'm sure this photo will continue to elicit interest, if for the sheer brazenness of the supposed 'entity' more than anything!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Being a photographer I think it's safe to say you know where your subjects are standing for that "perfect shot." And what of his wife's memory? Wouldn't she know where she was and what she was doing? Are we calling them liars?

    ReplyDelete
  85. It is a spaceman, it isn't a spaceman. The debate still goes on yet no one has bothered to explain why MIB reportedly visited the picture taker and even asked him where he saw the second spaceman. I believe the photographer answered them by asking, "What second spaceman?" If the picture is truly just the young girl's mother, then why would he be visited later by two very strange men dressed in black suits, hat, with really white skin, looking almost alien themselves and rather hostile to him as well. Something doesn't add up. All this photo debunkery is excellent, generally speaking. Isn't it interesting that when experts do debunking of other famous pictures such as those taken during the alledged US moon landings, all expert opinion is thrown out the window and the experts are called loons or conspiracy nuts or worse. If you believe that the photo analysis of the spaceman photo is accurate then the analysis of moon photos must have some merit as well. I don't mean the debate about shadow length and direction. What I'm talking about is that different landing sites that are supposed to be hundreds of miles away from each other have identical, not similar but exactly the same mountain ranges in the background!

    ReplyDelete