The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Bob Koford addresses the Cumberland "spaceman"


Bob Koford, in a comment to one of the posts below, sends readers to his site, where he provides an intriguing "analysis" of the Templeton photo.

Click here to see Mr. Koford's analysis

12 Comments:

  • Here's another

    http://www.foreshadower.net/whitefig.png

    serverly retinexed and other non-linear foolery, plus a value inversion.

    Question is whether the marks are letters or just artifacting.

    I made mine before seeing Bob's and I'll play around now and see if I can pull out anything.

    The figure is out of the field of reasonable focus, so there is likely not much to work with.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, October 24, 2010  

  • Greetings,

    Yep Bob, I'm agree with Don. We have discussed your work in our network.

    It seems the picture you analyzed is a compressed JPEG with bad resolution, very degraded, probably coming from the well known JPG (ie : http://www.ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64f.htm) itself very bad.
    The compression(s) may have created artifacts then, giving the "illusion" of letters by some pareidolia processes on the pixels.

    Just my opinion.

    Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • I'm having this same discussion on UFOUpDates right now: the image is not of *any* sort of quality to be doing "analysis" on. And in general, running filters upon such data is not analysis. Examining channel specific data, alternate color modes and those modes channel specific data is ultimately needed amongst other ops - and unless you know how to understand the way the image is put together, there's little "analysis" actually being done.

    Where did this photo being looked at come from? Don't know - we have no idea of it's linage in the digital media mess. Likely? It was scanned from a book - and a moire pattern destroys any notion of value for *any* analysis exam. It also adds data just by virtue of what it is.

    So really, this is all for naught - and is really not accomplishing much but chasing tails and leveling information based upon no foundation.

    Personally, I don't see this photo being all that compelling in as far as the UFO phenomenon. The "spaceman" and therefore UFO connotation is derived only from our perceived notion of a visor and a white suit.

    Somewhere, the original has to be available for high res scanning, and then we've got something to work with. Until then, these kinds of guesses and "analysis" are only adding to confusion and further confusing the issue - and I might add, possibly creating new beliefs or preconceived notions within the populace that may come across them.

    By Anonymous Jeff Ritzmann, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • Jeff:

    You would do well to read the prior posts to this one, below.

    More information is contained in the post and the comments.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • Jeff.

    I think everyone here (including myself) are very aware of the need for a better copy to work with.

    I disagree that it was a waste of time.

    What I feel I've been able to show is that there IS something there. If I can pull this much out of a poor copy, someone else should be able to get much more with a better one.

    -Bob

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • I agree Bob...

    That's why we extrapolated your comment and created a separate post for your interesting effort.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • I am no longer interested in the Solway Spaceman photo because there is so little photo evidence available I'm reduced to taking screenshots off of youtube videos and all they do is add to the issues I've already mentioned in the discussions here.

    The last video I looked at was Jenny Randles' in which there appears what looks like a 9x6 of the full frame photo. Is it Randles'? If so, where did she get it? Is it Templeton's? On a wall in the Templeton's house is a framed photo that is the same cropped one as the one in the video I linked to in one of these threads, which also has another photo of the set which is purported to have been shot "in quick succession" as the one in question. And that photo brings more caveats to the photo in question.

    Does Randles investigate this photo and the Templeton's story? She does not. She hops down the bunny trail of Woomera, instead.

    If, in nearly a half-century, no supporter of the authenticity of this photo (including the Templetons) has bothered to produce a good photo for viewing, then I see no reason why I ought to waste my time on it.

    As I am sure Jeff knows, a negative of color film from the early 1960s would be severely degraded today. At least the color would be very faded, and considering the climate where the Templeton's live, probably eaten by mould or fungus.

    The perspective issue or whether there is lettering on the Spaceman may not matter at all if the issues I have found (some of which I have not posted to) are there in a fresh print or critical scan. But its supporters won't care anyway because, like "Paris", they'll always have Woomera.

    My last word until such time as a good photograph is available.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • Don:

    Bragalia is on the hunt for info to confirm his "hoax" thesis.

    I'm surprised that you are throwing in the towel on this one.

    The Australian "connection" is inriguing, just as Jenny Randles sees it, as does TS (and me).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • RR wrote: "I'm surprised that you are throwing in the towel on this one."

    I've examined every image I can find on the web of two of the three photos, including videos. I would not offer an opinion based on such degraded images.

    Until there is a critical print or scan made available, there is nothing more for me to say.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • I've read the majority of the posts, but I still have to say amen to Don. There's just no point if you can't trace lineage, and can't get a decent quality visual. Any findings are flimsy with all the artifact aberrations.

    Bob-
    Gilles is absolutely right regarding the "letters" - consider all the times that image may have been compressed and that it might have come from press, and not any direct linage to the photo whatsoever. The "letters" are highly suspect as being anything but artifacts - it might have started as nothing but reflected light and shadow of, say a fold - or the topographical lay of whatever we're looking at (to be more general). You might have something for sure, but it's just as likely you don't. It's oddly fitting to me that this is all inconclusive.

    Clearly you're right, there's something there. I think pursuing the original for scanning is a worthwhile effort - this is a photo that got the shooter attention and has an air of mystery. It's likely been kept in a safe place, or preserved.

    My question would be, does anyone know where to start as far as obtaining or finding out about it? The second question is does anyone care enough to spend the effort to undertake it.

    By Anonymous Jeff Ritzmann, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • Jeff wrote: "My question would be, does anyone know where to start as far as obtaining or finding out about it?"

    Jenny Randles probably. Her video shows a print of the full frame (I call it that because of its 3:2 aspect ratio) that doesn't look as if it could have been made from the online jpeg. It is not an old print either because it doesn't have the characteristic color cast of a 1960s print made from color negative film, which can be seen in the Templeton's personal print, nor does it show the inevitable fading.

    I think having only the one print, and not the other two (the image in question is said to be from a series of three taken in quick succession, of which this image is the second), is not enough for a full understanding of the photo.

    One of the other two can be seen here, 18 seconds into the video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZzokY1ifw

    I would also consider the Templeton's personal print, which is cropped at the bottom.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, October 25, 2010  

  • In response to Jeff, I for one have taken an unusually personal interest in getting to the bottom of this mystery.

    On my end, I've been trying to track down any records Kodak might have kept on the investigation of the originals.I've tracked the Kodak archives down from their beginnings in the U.S., where they were kept at the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, N. Y., to an additional museum (also in Rochester), and from there, on to a collection housed in Leicester, and another collection in the British Library in the U.K., where the vast Kodak Ltd. Archive (from the British arm of the company was located), and have run into a more-or-less brick wall.

    Seems the Kodak Ltd. collection is so vast, it hasn't all been catalogued and indexed yet. I spoke with a very helpful gentleman in charge of the better half of the archive, who assures me if and when he comes across any pertinent info on the Templeton images, he'd get back to me.

    He also promised to contact a previous Kodak Ltd. employee, who might be able to shed more light on the investigation itself.

    As such, we may be waiting days or years for such information to come to light. Not exactly the timeframe we were hoping for, I guess.

    I did note that in one of the interviews Mr. Templeton gave, he said the local paper borrowed the negative in order to make a print to send to Woomera for comparison to the image they had there of the two tall Men in White (MIW) who interrupted their Blue Streak launch on the same day. So, it's possible that either Mr. Templeton or the Cumbria News still has that negative.

    Will look into that part of the mystery, beginning Monday.

    TS

    By Blogger TemplarScribe, at Sunday, October 31, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home