The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, October 22, 2010

Anthony Bragalia finds "spaceman" solution?

6 Comments:

  • Here is a blow up of the figure.

    http://bobkoford.blogspot.com/2010/10/space-guy.html

    -Bob

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Saturday, October 23, 2010  

  • Anthony,

    Since you ask for comments on the above video, I'll be glad to oblige.

    As I've mentioned more than once in your original post here on UFO Iconoclasts, and despite your claims to have done "research" on this case, I honestly believe you are willingly ignoring many key facts surrounding this case.

    First, you ignore the fact that it wasn't just Mr. Templeton there when the image was taken -- his wife was present, too (as was, of course, his daughter). All three have stated there was no other people anywhere nearby. Are you suggesting she too was looking through the viewfinder, and was therefore oblivious to the only other person on an otherwise nearly barren marshland that faced the sea, with no other populated areas, paths or walkways nearby?

    You also ignore the fact that this was the middle of three images taken in quick succession, and on none of the other images did this intruder appear.

    Despite your claims that all other evidence is "heresay," you also make no mention of the verified sighting of very similar tall, white-clothed beings at the Woomera missile test range the very next day, nor of the connection between Woomera and the missile-building facility (which was building the same rockets Woomera was testing) just up the road from where Templeton's image was taken.

    Most egregious, you claim the feet of a normal jogger would be placed firmly on the ground. Yet, when I watched the above video, I noticed that your "superimposed" man would be standing anywhere from twenty to fifty feet behind the girl in the foreground. He would have to be at least fifteen feet tall at that distance to not be floating in midair (see 1:24 into the clip).

    Now, before you go claiming this is somehow "forced perspective," that is simply not possible. If it were, then the background field of flowers would appear the same distance away as the superimposed man. They're not. And if in your research you had had come across the interview Mr. Templeton gave (posted at http://americanmonsters.com/site/2010/08/cumberland-spaceman-england/ ), you'd notice the onsite re-creation done by the interviewer, which clearly showed the land, instead of rising behind the girl in the foreground, is either flat or dropping slightly away towards the ocean (see 1:24 through 1:39 of that clip). Templeton, BTW, states they had hiked to the top of a grassy knoll, not far from the road, and the ocean can even be seen in the background of his image.

    Other than the small knoll they took their picture from, it's so generally flat that, just as Mr. Templeton claimed, you can see the Chapel Cross Atomic Power Station, which is visible on the horizon, many miles away. The link above shows that image, as well as a shot from the air that shows how generally flat the marsh is.

    You know what else that shot of the marsh shows? That being bisected by open water (by parts of the estuary as well as intrusions from the sea), it's completely unsuited to any sort of jogging, strolling, or otherwise pedestrian intrusion. What Mr. Templeton had done was simply go a few feet off the road to a high spot, in order to take his picture. In fact, if the interviewer in the video above did find the exact spot, as he says, you'll notice at the 1:39 point that there's a deep crevasse or fold (no doubt open water parting the marsh plant life) just behind the foreground, no more than ten or twelve feet away.

    Would a jogger simply leap that stretch of open water? If he had, would that also have been so non-interesting that all three Templetons would have ignored it, too?

    Anthony, please give up this hopeless attempt to disprove -- nay, debunk -- the authenticity of this image. Just as your jogger would have done if he'd gone off for a stroll in the Burgh Marsh, you're getting in way over your head.

    TemplarScribe

    By Blogger TemplarScribe, at Sunday, October 24, 2010  

  • which is the more rational thing to believe?
    1) some guy in a parker was jogging there and (somehow somehow) wasn't seen by the guy taking the picture and the folks around him.

    2) an alien or extraterrestrial entity was there behind the girl.
    I found a new toothbrush in my room yesterday even though both I and my room mate were away for 2 weeks. It must have been an extra-terrerestrial Nephilim that put it their. gatsby!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 24, 2010  

  • TS,

    You should stop poo pooing the perspective issue, and resolve it, instead.

    Woomera (or Zamora's sighting) has nothing to do with this photograph. Maybe, as you think, it has something to do with what is in the photo, but it has nothing to do with the photo.

    Commonly, people look at the things in a photo and not the photo as an object itself (which is what I do). I can find no mention of it on the web which indicates that in nearly a half century no one had noticed the technical problem evidenced. That's because they look at the 'spaceman' in the photo, and nothing else apparently.

    The issues I've raised are now proven:

    I said there was evidence of a technical problem that might be due to an internal reflection. 18 seconds into the video I linked to there's another of the photos where the technical problem is obvious.

    I said that the images we have online (the full frame and the head shot) are from different "lineages", that the head shot is from a print, and the full frame from a reproduction. You claimed they had the same source. Twelve seconds into the video is Mr Templeton's personal print and the palette of that photo is identical to the head shot, not the full frame.

    I pointed out that the head shot is vertically elongated. The original print in the video is not, but it is discolored on the long sides (probably from being framed in a non-archival paper or board) which matches the crop of the head shot along the long sides. The elongation is probably an artifact of an attempt to crop by using a resampling tool (a tyro's mistake) instead of a crop tool. Rather than undoing the mistake, the person cropped the resampled image.

    And, proving the two online images are from different lineages, Mr Templeton's personal print is cropped on the bottom edge and the full frame online image is not.

    On perspective, in the video are shots of a second image. Look at his other daughter on our right and her right arm.

    I said the photographer was on eye-level with the subject. Unless Mr Templeton was 3 feet tall, he is either kneeling down, or standing lower than the subject.

    Reviewing photos on Google Earth beginning at Marsh House along the road along the Firth, I see rolling country with plenty of hills and raised windbreak tree lines on mounds. I especially noted the erosional features of watercourses and concluded what you confirm that the photos were taken along the roadside where there is a rise in the land and where there are erosional gullies. It looks as if his other daughter is reaching down.

    The perspective issue is also demonstrated in the photo of Mr Rhodes from the Arizona Republic. The photographer is probably down on one knee and taking the photo from a low angle, tilting the camera up, which explains why Mr Rhodes' left arm appears bigger, and his head smaller, than normal.

    I suggest you prove the perspective issue, rather than poo pooing it -- and I suggest to Tony that he obtain a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Kodak Box Brownie, toss a shoe heel into the air and photograph it.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, October 24, 2010  

  • TS wrote: "You also ignore the fact that this was the middle of three images taken in quick succession..."

    What is your source for this information?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • Perhaps Mrs. Templeton owned a light-colored hooded jacket, and it was she who accidentally wandered into the shot.

    If Mr. Templeton was busy with the camera (and was concentrating on his daughter in the viewfinder), he simply might not have realized she was there at that time. (And she might not have known he was taking a photo right at that time.)

    Interestingly, his wife is often left out of the story - I usually hear it as "he and his daughter were the only ones there".

    This interpretation actually answers several of the questions raised...

    By Blogger Matt G. (NYC), at Tuesday, December 14, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home