UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Missing the point(s)?

solway-head.jpg

The continuing dialogue between "commentors" here about the Solway Firth (Cumberland) “spaceman” confirms, for us, that the photo and incident should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

The reason not to dismiss stems from the more-than-tangential information that a missile test (Blue Streak Missile) in Australia (Woomera) in the same time-frame as the photo-taking by Mr. Templeton – Australia’s time zone considerably different than that of the Solway Firth (U.K.) time zone – had a bizarre incident: two “men” in white seen in the missile range, halting the test, allegedly.

The Blue Streak missile was also worked on and tested in the Solway Firth area.

mod-range.jpg

(And although some regard the Socorro/Zamora sighting as not relevant, we think it is; Lonnie Zamora saw two beings (men?), dressed in white coveralls, one month, to the day, before the Solway Firth/Woomera sightings.)

two.jpg

The ongoing search for details about the Templeton photo-shoot is important, and we hope it continues to a resolution of some kind.

That the Woomera event isn’t being pursued, seriously, is a mistake and a missed opportunity of great significance.

Mr. Templeton, in our view, did not commit a fraud or a hoax.

The image his camera captured was not a jogger, a beekeeper, or a person in a fencing outfit, as one person has suggested to Mr. Bragalia.

The image remains a true anomaly, a real mystery.

And the Woomera “sighting” has to be considered as integral to the solution of the Solway Firth spaceman photo.

While the Solway Firth photo does nothing to explain the overall UFO mystery, it does provide a clue, perhaps, to what was going on in 1964, as far as UFO sightings go.

And, like Roswell and 1947, 1964 is an interesting time-point for UFO events. Why?

19 Comments:

  • not buying, sorry. the simplest explanation usually works best.

    Whatever it is...we would most likely never know, it is a long jump to claim it is an extraterrestrial alien from another planet or galaxy. Ditto, time traveler or inter-dimensional entities.

    which at the end of the day is what all those who see the pictures as evidence of the paranormal are gunning for. No?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Not buying it either. You say definitively that it's not a jogger - how exactly do you know that? I admit that it is intriguing and something that I'd be very curious to see some conclusion to, but my strong suspicion is, and the probability is, that there is some mundane explanation for the photo (for me, likely a jogger that the family just did not notice) - and one which we will likely never know...

    By Blogger Jeff, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Anonymous people:

    The point of our "missing the points" is that there are extenuating circumstances that seem to be ignored for an explanation that doesn't fit the facts....that is the clear statements by Mr. and Mrs. Templeton that they didn't see anyone in the vicinity of their daughter before or after the picture was taken.

    The Templeton's were not stupid people. They couldn't have both missed a person "jogging" or flitting around their daughter.

    Then there is the similar event in Australia, which can't be easily discounted...or attributed to a jogger or anything else mundane.

    Taking the easy route, without imaginative conjecture has been the bane of the UFO mystery.

    People just want to find a prosaic explanation so they can dismiss something significant within the realm of reality -- another reality, one we call the real reality.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • "People just want to find a prosaic explanation so they can dismiss something significant within the realm of reality -- another reality, one we call the real reality."

    One could also say that people cling to paranormal explanations because they can't accept that reality is really mundane & prosaic.

    Neither argument amounts to much more than:

    "It's unexplained(or explainable)."

    "No, it isn't"

    "Yes, it is."

    "No, it isn't."

    "Reality," it seems, is very much in the eye of the beholder, don't you think?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Anon:

    Plato would disagree with you, even though you make sense.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Greetings,

    Patrice Seray, a personal RL friend, experimented ufologist, and great collector of old french ufo articles, want to share this old newspaper, a clipping of the "L'Inconnu", N°21, october 1977. Nothing more to share this very short article ;)

    http://img833.imageshack.us/i/templeton.jpg/

    Fast translation :

    "This space man photographied in Cumberland in june 1964, have nothing extraordinary: the combinaison is an anti-gravitation model used in a neighboor nuclear site.
    This picture is then the result of a double exposure due to a bad fonction of the camera or delibatly intended to realize an hoax. The author of the picture and his wife claim to have not seen something anormal when the picture was realized."

    PS : it is not we share or not this opinion of the paper, but just in order if it could, or not, participate to the discussion and point some elements.

    Very best regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Gilles, mon ami:

    An experimental ufologist? What other kinds are there?

    A double exposure -- that would have had to have the spaceman taken first then the Templeton daughter filmed over it.

    I don't buy it.

    Again, the Australian incident has to be explained (away?) then.

    Of course, conjectural opinion is what we're looking for and, as usual, you Gilles, provide that.

    Merci.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Hum : I wrote "anti-gravitation" : anti-radiations, of course.

    All my appologies.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • A couple of things - a jogger? In a big empty field, with witnesses around? And they wouldn't notice? As well, The couple commenting on it betray no tells indicative of a lie. And they've kept the photo all this time and are puzzled by it.

    As well, I've noticed that if it really was a jogger, then said jogger would be a bit high off the ground. There's more than enough limbs present to make a good analysis. either he has a weirdly long torso, or absurdly long legs. I'm not saying "It's a spaceman!" or even "It's a ghost!" On the other hand - if we say it's a jogger running away from them, then what is that white thing on the top of his head? Not headphones-it's in the wrong position. If you look at the photo, you begin to notice that what seems to be his head seems a bit off.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • RR,

    I agree heartily with your estimate of the situation re: the Templeton image.

    It's rare to have such an unusual event captured on film, that has been so clearly proven to have not been a hoax, or a double exposure. Some of the Anonymoys comments posted here are discounting the extensive reviews done by, first, the local police, then by Kodak, and then by unknown (as yet) outside experts lured by the offer of free film for life. They immediately ruled out a double exposure.

    The anomalous "points" RR is alluding to make this a truly unique image in UFO lore:

    1) The invisibility of the figure to the **four** humans present. We now know that beside Mr. and Mrs. Templeton, both their younger daughter and their older daughter (the one on her hands and knees in the new image, perhaps) were also present.

    2) The strange height of the figure, well above the marshy area, and confirmed by multiple YouTube videos that show the overwhelming flatness behind the subject. Mr. Bragalia has ascribed the figure's height to a number of theories (such as "forced perspective" with a figure on a hill behind the subject), but an honest appreciation of the marsh location simply rules that out. 2B would be the strange slant to the left of the figure, a "lean" normal walkers would not be able to sustain without falling over.

    3) The unusual all-white 'suit' the figure is wearing. Giles does suggest that it may be an anti-radiation suit, and that (or a chem-proof suit) may be what the figure intended it to look like.

    4) The undeniable connection to Woomera. The Jenny Randles video (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIEeufAdtw) shows the Cumbria missile facility itself, just a few miles up the road, where the Blue Streaks were constructed.

    5) One might even add in the Men in Black event following the publication of the image, and witnessed by other firemen at the firehouse Mr. Templeton worked at.

    These points are clearly not what Anonymous claims is "(U)nexplained(or explainable)," followed by "No, it isn't," "Yes it is," ad infinitum.

    These points are undeniable, and what's more, they're what make the Solway Spaceman so unique.

    In the words of Don, we need to move on. We need to agree that the particular identity of the figure may never be known with 100% certainty, but we can use these points to indicate further questions:

    Why did this figure choose to be directly behind the only party on the marsh that day, other than a pair of old women sitting in their car some 300-400 yards away? Was he trying to be photographed, or did he feel immune to simple 1960s technology?

    Why was the figure dressed in that suit? Was it for his protection, or was it a disguise? And why a disguise, if he (and the two similar figures seen on surveillance camras at Woomera) were undetectable by humans present?

    Why is the figure so far off the ground, and leaning so much into the wind? Is it an indication of anti-gravity, one way to get around the marshy terrain?

    If the figure was indeed interested in the Blue Streak missile, why was he here, and not up the road? Was their craft nearby, which because of the flatness of the terrain was a better landing site

    I propose that tackling such challenging questions would allow us to gain more from the Solway image, than by trying to deubunk its provenance, or to ignore the unique elements of its context.

    TemplarScribe

    By Blogger TemplarScribe, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • I, for one, would really like to have a better quality shot to work with. I understand that the "letters" that I see on his shirt might be just compounded smudges, or other such thing, but if they did turn out to be actual letters, they, more than anything else in the shot, could lead us in the direction of what he is about.

    By the way, thanks RR group, for staying the course of reason.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • Oh, for heaven's sake! Just look at the photo again under 200% magnification and you'll plainly see it's somebody wearing a tight-fitting hoodie seen from the back. The jogger explanation is the most consistent with what's in the photograph.

    BTW, people enamored of their children and trying to capture that special magic in a photo can be oblivious to what's going on around the child. In fact, most amateur photographers have no concept of what's in frame or what's about to enter it when they press the shutter release.

    The only mystery to this photo is why UFO and paranormal religionists keep insisting this is an anomaly or ET. All the rest of the strained connections to other events are just that . . . strained.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Monday, November 01, 2010  

  • PG:

    Your view isn't anathema to us, since our Tony Bragalia is the person who put forth the jogger conjecture.

    But many do not see this as the explanation.

    To ignore concomitant events that are similar, or in this case, relevant and almost identical, although thousands of miles apart, is what the UFO crowd has done with many incidents over the years; that is, UFO "researchers" have overlooked the Sherlock Holmes-like minutia that might be pertinent to a sighting or anomalistic event.

    This is the UFO geezer group I keep belly-aching about.

    Fortunately, there is a gaggle of new UFO investigators -- Redfern, Bishop, Kimball, Bragalia, Koford, et al -- who do not discard or dismiss the extraneous "details" that might be important.

    Your cavalier approach is okay with us, but not "scientific" in any way.

    Science puts together hypotheses and tries to verify those hypotheses, which is what we're asking for here, in the Solway Firth "spaceman" episode.

    So thanks, for your input, but it is short of any hypothetical worth.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 02, 2010  

  • I truly believe, RR, that your bias is getting in the way of reason here. My guess is that you believe alien visitation is a real phenomenon, and therefore you immediately jump to a paranormal explanation for a photograph like this, and try to fit any supposed "evidence" to fit what you want to see. I'm very curious as to what you wish to prove by investigating this - do you think it will provide definitive or corroborative proof of aliens? Any evidence here is so ambiguous and circumstantial (to say that this other event has to be considered "integral" to the Templeton's event is a stretch at best) that I can guarantee that you will never come to any definitive conclusion. I consider myself an open minded skeptic, and I admit I do have an interest in supposed paranormal phenomenon, but I believe that this is one of those cases (like time travelers in photos, for instance) that if there was a third party who somehow witnessed this whole event and gave a rational explanation (oh, yeah, me and my friend were just over the hill, I threw the ball, he went to get it, and then rushed back to me very quickly - I'm sure that family just didn't notice him) it would be one of those "aha" moments for a lot of people.

    By Blogger Jeff, at Tuesday, November 02, 2010  

  • Jeff:

    I'm absolutely agnostic when it comes to the UFO phenomenon, as my views here and at some of our other blogs will attest.

    See http://rrrgoup.blogspot.com for example(s).

    But, if you're reading carefully, the views presented here, by some rational thinkers and investigators, pro ET and con ET, you must admit -- if you are indeed open-minded -- the "spaceman" photo is worthy of an explanation -- any explanation actually, but one that truly explains the photo.

    We haven't arrived at that point yet, and while you seem to want to end the discussion, I think it is still open for further conjecture and a denouement perhaps.

    Thanks for your caveats however.

    I, and others, will take them under advisement as they say...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 02, 2010  

  • Hi RR,

    I've admitted that the photo is indeed intriguing, but I believe that a definitive explanation will remain elusive, and, if not, would end up being a very boring one. At this point, for this photo, any momentum behind it seems to be based more in mythology than any actual proof towards the paranormal (just the fact that it's referred to as the "spaceman photo" introduces bias). I think there is a lot of potential evidence for paranormal phenomenon out there, and a good number of cases that defy rational explanations, but I find it hard to number this single ambiguous photo amongst them, and I don't believe any benefit could possibly come from investigating it.

    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff, at Tuesday, November 02, 2010  

  • Jeff:

    The epithet "spaceman" is meant merely as an identifier, and has come to represent the photo over the years.

    I, too, think it's allows a preconceived bias, but it's a good designator for what the photo appears to represent.

    The photo by itself may be of no profound UFO consequence, but in conjunction with the Australian (Blue Streak) incident, the Templeton image presents a more than mundane mystery, perhaps.

    Perhaps...

    So we hope this current dalliance of ours will play out fruitfully.

    If not, then it joins the plethora of other UFO stories that also remain in limbo.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 02, 2010  

  • Hi
    I have just posted my research into the 5 June 1964 Woomera, UFO film at
    http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com

    and its possible links to the Templeton photo.

    Please take a look.

    By Blogger Keith Basterfield, at Saturday, December 11, 2010  

  • Keith:

    An excellent pursuit of the Woomera event.

    We'll post an update, including your blog site and Pathe film clip, for those who will find your "research" interesting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 11, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home