posted by RRRGroup at
Monday, October 25, 2010
Here's an example of why we need the negatives and should not be too hasty in our conclusions without that best evidence.http://www.foreshadower.net/18second.jpgRegards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Greetings,Yep Don, we need the negatives or better picture's rezolution, to make serious picture investigations.But regarding:http://www.foreshadower.net/18second.jpgand:"You also ignore the fact that this was the middle of three images taken in quick succession...".My doubt, and RED FLAG. As you asked and pointed, heu...Dunno the third photo, BTW. But anything of "quick succession" in my humble opinion.Regards,Gilles F.
By Gilles. F., at Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Gilles (quoting TS) ""You also ignore the fact that this was the middle of three images taken in quick succession...".""But anything of "quick succession" in my humble opinion."The shadows in two photos would be the same if they are taken in quick succession.Regards,Don
Eya Don"The shadows in two photos would be the same if they are taken in quick succession."Yep. The shadows are incompatible by a "quick succession" of pictures, at least with the two we have.It is what you noticed too?Regards,Gillmes
The music alone was worth clicking on the video. :-D It's so... Subtle.
By Cullan Hudson, at Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Gilles "It is what you noticed too?"Yes, there is that. I think there are good reasons to require the negatives to all three before reaching a conclusion. And, in order to analyse the flare or internal reflection, any other negatives or prints from the same roll should be reviewed.Regards,Don
Cullan:Yah, whomever added that "music" should have their eardrums punctured.RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 27, 2010
As Mr. Templeton has said, the images were three in number, all taken in succession. That doesn't mean he didn't reposition either himself or his subject (his daughter) to get the best light, which it seems like he did. That would of course have changed the direction of the sun, and the shadows.You can tell his daughter is organizing the flowers in her hand, and it looks like his wife is still pulling flowers from the nearby area (on her hands and knees). This must have been the first or second of the three.Notice also the extremely deep field of view behind the girl.BTW, Don: Nice unearthing of that picture. Great work! Can I ask where you found it?On my end, I've been trying to track down any records Kodak might have kept on the investigation on the originals. From Rochester, N. Y., to Leicester and on to the British Library, but nothing yet. Will post when I do.TS
By TemplarScribe, at Saturday, October 30, 2010
TS wrote:"That doesn't mean he didn't reposition either himself or his subject (his daughter) to get the best light, which it seems like he did. That would of course have changed the direction of the sun, and the shadows."In one the shadow is behind her (the full frame online image), and in this one the shadow is in front of her. How many people were there from Mr Templeton's family? His wife? Anyone else?"Notice also the extremely deep field of view behind the girl."He is further away from the subject, and shooting from a bit above, rather than a bit below. I'm still wondering about the 'telephotoish' look of the white figure photo."Can I ask where you found it?"It's cropped and straightened from a screen capture made at 18 seconds into the linked youtube video.I enhanced the contrast. The reason for doing so was to confirm what I saw in the video, that there is a white shape above her head, as if the white figure were either just disappearing below or rising above the crest of a hill.Because all the images online are degraded, I would not want to conclude anything from them, but they are suggestive."On my end, I've been trying to track down any records Kodak might have kept on the investigation on the originals. From Rochester, N. Y., to Leicester and on to the British Library, but nothing yet. Will post when I do."What is needed is both negatives -- all three, and if possible any other negatives from that roll.The negatives should be examined for stains (fingerprints), and fungus or mold and cleaned. Avoid restoration, even though the colors are likely to be very faded. Have prints made. Have a 4000dpi 48bit scan made (any late model Nikon scanner).Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Saturday, October 30, 2010
I now realize that the image Don got was from the above video.I also realize something else from the video and the picture not previously common knowledge: that along with Mr. Templeton and his wife and young daughter present that day on the marsh, his eldest daughter was also present.It's also more likely that it's the elder daughter seen in Don's extracted image above, on her knees pulling flowers.So, that's four people that were present, none of which saw any passersby or other nearby people, which make the "unseen jogger" theory that much less possible.Mr. Templeton does mention two old women sitting in their car some 300 to 400 yards away. Obviously, they couldn't be the person in the white suit seen behind the girl in the famous photograph. He also notes the unusual behavior of the livestock in the area, who all huddled far off in a corner of the field, much against their normal nature.And in this video, as well as a longer one provided from Jenny Randles' BBC program on the Solway Firth Spaceman (viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIEeufAdtw), as well as a handful of other videos, you can easily tell that there is no hill or ridge behind the location where the picture was taken, and that the ground is nearly flat in all directions. In fact, near the end of the video Don links to, you can see the course of the open water that I alluded to before, in the previous UFO Icon's thread on the subject, where an interviewer found the location of the original pic, and the camera panned over a fold in the ground. I suggested then it was one of the many sections of open water that the marsh by nature contains.Look at the 2:23 mark, and you'll see such an area (although dry at the time of the filming), and imagine what it's like there in May, after the spring rains. I've spent time regularly in marshes, and believe me, no one goes blythely strolling through them, not beekeepers, nor women in all-white get-ups with a scarf 'round their heads.I'm willing to to go out on a limb here and suggest something even more ground-breaking: that not only was the Solway Spaceman able to remain invisible to the humans nearby, but that he was levitating in some way, in order to avoid exactly the kind of natural obstacle born out in this video. That might account for his odd "lean" to one side, as he compensated for the wind from that direction.Something to consider.TemplarScribe
By TemplarScribe, at Sunday, October 31, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Sourcerer, at Monday, November 01, 2010
I never heard until now that the older sister was there too!Some commenters have used that as evidence that four people couldn't have missed someone else being there; I'm going the other way and saying that gives us more suspects who might have wandered into frame!I'm beginning to think the "figure" is the older sister.Look at the figure's right shoulder (assuming it has it's back to the camera) - there seems to be a faint vertical dividing line between the arm and the shoulder.Note in the photo where the older daughter is collecting flowers that she is wearing a sleeveless dress.Also not that even close to the camera, in relative focus, parts of her dress appear quite whitish, from sun glare. Perhaps further away, out of focus, the whole dress might appear white?I would love to get a closer look at her hair, and find out if she had a scarf (or light hooded jacket!) with her that day.I'm not a technical enough person to do the work required to "prove" this theory, but just the fact his wife AND older daughter were with him (when usually the story goes that he and his little daughter were alone, with no one else around) makes it more likely to me that one of the two accidentally wandered into frame.
By Matt G. (NYC), at Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Is this fact or fiction. i need your reply as soon as possible
By eric don, at Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Eric:We don't know if this is real or not.We've asked some who have more familiarity with the incident and they think it's bogus, but can't explain exactly why.We think there is a real mystery here, and shall pursue the matter to any resolution that is possible.RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Matt G: "I'm beginning to think the "figure" is the older sister.""Note in the photo where the older daughter is collecting flowers that she is wearing a sleeveless dress."Note the shadow in the lower left quad of the image. The shadow would be Mom, the two daughters, and the photographer. That is four. That part of the frame also shows the internal reflection (if that is what it is) flaw. Above the shadow is another dark spot, which might be soil showing through a 'divot' in the grass. It is hard to tell because of the flaw and because this is not such a good image to base conclusions on.Note the white crescent above her head at the spot one would think the spaceman is in the famous photo.I disagree with the argument that that landscape there is flat as a pancake. The marsh is cut through with erosional water channels. If there is one behind the girls, a figure could rise up out of it, or drop down into it in an instant.Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A lot of "ifs" Don.But your suppositions are grist for further investigation.(I asked Andy Roberts for his take but got no reply. David Clarke said Andy would provide more info, but Andy seems to have moved on.)We're still pursuing the matter, as we wrote above.The incident fascinates, for several reasons.RR
Don: "Note the shadow in the lower left quad of the image. The shadow would be Mom, the two daughters, and the photographer. That is four."Are you referring here to the photo that includes the older sister (on hands and knees)? Yes, I accept that between shadows and people in the image we have four. (What is the significance?)If you meant the "spaceman" photo, though, I see no such clearly definable "three person" shadow.I don't think any of the shadows in the famous photo preclude the possibility that the older sister could be standing behind the younger sister, and her image was distorted by sun glare, lack of focus and/or other factors beyond my ability to investigate.
By Matt G. (NYC), at Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Gee Tony a curious examination of the youtube vids on this "mysterious" photo clearly expose it as the back of a person in a white jacket.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW106rtskUU&feature=relatedEnd of story. It's no different than that recent "bigfoot" trail camera shot which was just the back of a person in a black rain suit. Everyone claimed it was bigfoot until the obvious was pointed out -- same with the Cumberland photo.
By spiraldance, at Friday, December 31, 2010
Matt: "I accept that between shadows and people in the image we have four. (What is the significance?"Since there is evidence of the white figure in the second photo, and that photo has four people (counting the shadow), it means the white figure can't be the other daughter.I wonder if TemplarScribe will return to tell us the results of his investigations. Having had the post removed that referred to his research intent, I will assume for now he found nothing.Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Friday, December 31, 2010
With all due respect, Don, I don't see "evidence of the white figure in the second photo".Do you mean the small bit of white by the top of her hairline? To me, that looks like a few strands of hair that look whitish due, perhaps, to the lighting and/or camera settings.Look at the older sister's dress in that photo - don't portions of it look whitish too? Yet we can be pretty sure the dress is not actually whiter in those areas; we can presume that the pattern covers the whole dress, and that the lighting (and perhaps camera settings) make it LOOK whitish in those area - same as those strands of the little girl's hair.I don't think the "mysterious figure" is wearing all white. I think whatever factors caused the "whiting" we see in the little girl's hair and the older sister's dress in the second photo, also caused the figure to appear "bleached".(After studying a blowup in this video, I also can see a subtle difference in the "whiteness" between the figure's arms and back, as well as faint dividing lines at both shoulders - which leads me to believe what the person is wearing is sleeveless, like the older daughter's dress.)I still see no reason to eliminate the possibility that the figure is the older sister, distorted by the camera settings.
By Matt G. (NYC), at Friday, January 14, 2011
Matt wrote: "Do you mean the small bit of white by the top of her hairline? To me, that looks like a few strands of hair that look whitish due, perhaps, to the lighting and/or camera settings."I don't know what it is, but it is reason enough to want to see the negative before concluding anything, especially as we are looking at a not very good quality image."Look at the older sister's dress in that photo - don't portions of it look whitish too?"Sure, but her dress is blue. The highlights of the image appear blown out. It might be in the print or likely just in the video, but negative film retains good detail in the highlights. That's direct bright sunlight there. The shadows in both photographs suggest different lighting. We need to see the negatives before concluding anything."I still see no reason to eliminate the possibility that the figure is the older sister, distorted by the camera settings."Why not Mom? Maybe she was wearing white.Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Friday, January 14, 2011
Don:I absolutely agree that it could be the wife/mother too. In fact, she was my first "suspect" when I found out she was there - especially when I saw her short hair in the video; I just thought it more likely that the older daughter might have wandered into frame once I found out she was there too. Yes, I'd LOVE to know what the wife/mother was wearing that day.Although I'm not sure how you can suggest that, when you've accounted for the mother(shadow) in the photograph of the sisters, yet you still claim to see evidence of the figure there too.I also agree that we need to see the negatives before we can try to solidly conclude anything.Although, if the image can be explained as Templeton's wife or older daughter washed out in some manner, then I for one would be quite satisfied.
By Matt G. (NYC), at Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile