UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Templeton Photo and more...

Our "colleague" and friend, Gilles Fernandez, who maintains an erudite French UFO site and Facebook venue, has provided (via Facebook) a link to Vicent-Juan Ballester Olmos' definitive Fotocat web-site:

http://fotocat.blogspot.com

The link above will provide much interesting UFO material and about midway in that material is an analysis -- an exegesis I like to say -- of the Templeton "space man" photo we've dealt with off and on here...

spaceman.jpg

We thank Gilles for bringing this to our attention.

RR

13 Comments:

  • They've got the other image I posted here a few years ago, which was pulled from a video. I suppose no Solway aficionado has yet had a light-bulb moment and gotten the negative of the Spaceman photo, much less the other image-- or even scanned a better print than the two lineages of jpegs on the web.

    Back then, we discussed the camera, that it didn't have a mirror-return, so after shooting the shot and then perhaps advancing the film for another, Templeton's vison through the lens was of blackness, not the scene. With the family either turned away from the Spaceman or watching Templeton shoot, it is very likely they missed seeing the figure.

    But comparing the two images raises some questions, at least for me.

    This case survives on 'We didn't see anybody' and the late Mr. Templeton being the salt of the earth.

    Regards

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • But if it was a regular person, they certainly had on interesting garb.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • We only have these crappy jpegs on the web -- two lines of them, and one was resampled to the wrong aspect ratio (does the girl have a long or more 'pug' face?), and the even crappier jpeg of the second.

    Based on those, the image in question (as well, if you look, the second photo), the garb is 'haloed', most clearly seen in the 'helmet'. It is nearly impossible for us to not see an astronaut because the suggestion of the image, the reinforcement via ufological opinion, and especially titling it "Spaceman". The 'halo', a gradation between the white of the clothing and the blue of the sky, and in direct sun, and in the out of focus area of the shot, gives the impression of a space suit.

    The above is just chat about the images available to look at, and not an opinion about the actual photograph, which is not in evidence.

    Regards,

    Don


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • We've dealt with this a number of times here, previously, as I noted.

    A slew of photos from various venues were provided, some from very good sources.

    You might check them out -- one batch from our Brit friends who did a full presentation about Mr. Templeton and his photos for their web-sites.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • As I posted elsewhere:

    How many times have we heard this “not present at the time but showed in image later” claim?

    It looks as if Jim was a bit of a flying-saucer nutter and was influenced by Klaatu’s fencing-gear spacesuit. The mask, white padded vest, hand at hip, all seen from behind; but for Jim’s word, it’s all too obvious. The negative strip contained better pictures of Jim’s friend in his gear I’d bet. And when his instant celebrity had waned, Jim invented a MIB story for another fleeting rush of fame.

    Forgetting Jim’s story (there’s nothing overtly ufoish about the figure), on a purely mechanical level, the picture’s interest lies in its ambiguity by juxtaposition of innocent child and menacing figure on a stark landscape, a bit of Sixties surrealism, whether by design or happenstance. Typical ufoolery.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • Pehaps the link is buried in a comment, of which there are hundreds, on various Solway articles on Iconoclasts. I was a participant in some of them. I didn't see any images in your originating articles that weren't of the usual jpegs.

    Maybe you think I'm wrong, but in a case in which photographs are the evidence, I think it reasonable to get the photos and examine them. Both skeptics and advocates sometimes react as if it were a bizarre suggestion. Perhaps they don't want to know because it might end the game, and it is a lot more fun to speculate on the basis of vaporous evidence.

    I really think that is what the "youngsters" complain about the "geezers" going over and over and over the same ground for decades.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, December 28, 2012  

  • Sorry for the off-topic.

    Greetings,

    In another thread, here or in Kevin's blog, Don talked about and send to our attention an attempt to reconstitute Rex Heflin's pictures with his contemporan camera. Don remembered it was somewhere in the net and in French, but his link dead.
    As I replied to him, will ask French Friends.

    I believe what Don talked about was this reconstitution:
    http://archive.ufofu.org/article/reconstitution-des-photos-de-rex-heflin/

    Dunno if Don will read, but I share. If someone have his personnal email, please forward to him. TY so much.

    Regards, sorry for off topic.

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • Merci, Gilles...

    Don should see this....a very good link.

    (I hope his French is up to par.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • Thank you, Gilles. My email is easy enough. I'm don and my site is foreshadower net.

    Regarding the Fotocat article on the Spaceman photo. I'm pleased to have it because the larger jpeg of the print cleared up some questions which the low quality jpegs could not answer.

    According to the article, the lens was a Zeiss Jena Biotar. In the video from which I grabbed the other image, the camera was also pictured. It and the three photos were in the shot. The lens on the camera looks more like a Meyer-Optik, than a Zeiss Jena Biotar. It is just a grab from a youtube video, so I am not certain.

    Fotocat: "The distance from the child to the camera is calculated similarly, the result being 160 cm..." or about 5 1/4 feet.

    The aperture is given as f/16, which with a 58mm lens on 35mm format gives a depth of field of about 4 1/2 to 7 feet.

    "...then the unknown person would be 860-160 = 700 cm behind the child.", or about 23 feet.

    Or about 7 meters, as in the article's conclusion.

    I'm still absorbing the analysis, especially on diffraction. When I read Templeton shot at f/16, I wondered about the diffraction and possible off-focus.

    "a photo taken with relative aperture N = 16, which means that the picture is not well focused on the child."

    When the article mentioned the exposure settings, I wondered whether f/16 would introduce diffraction (Passing light through a smaller opening will diffuse the light coming out more than through a larger opening). Normally, f/16 should be sufficient for focus, a major variable being the lens' aberrations. A Zeiss Jena lens should be better than a Meyer-Optik, but their sample variation was high in East German lenses (and more so, I think, in USSR lenses).

    In any event, I think my opinion (about why we see a "Spaceman"), in posts above, is not inconsistent with the Fotocat articles' conclusions.

    The larger jpeg answered some other questions I had, and I do not think it necessary now to have the negative to come to a conclusion about the photo.

    Thanks, again, and to Rich, too, for posting the link.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • I've never understood the intense fascination with this photo, which is obviously of a child and an adult male decked out in mid-sixties British fashion-forward gear, which set the international fashion world on fire around the time this photo was taken.

    Do any of the geezers, who are old enough, remember how radically street fashions changed at the time, or do they just ignore the obvious to keep plowing the same fallow ground ad nauseam? One theory -- their only notice of fashion back in the day was changing pocket protectors (LOL).

    The fact that the photographer sold copies of the photo really says it all, doesn't it?

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • PG, it is not the photo alone that is of interest to some. There is Blue Streak and Woomera. That's where the red meat is. Watch the Randles video of her interview with Mr Templeton and see he flutter off like a dove to research it.

    "Do any of the geezers, who are old enough, remember how radically street fashions changed at the time.."

    The Spaceman is probably wondering where he parked his Vespa and has got his pointy boots wet.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • For those whose French is NOT up to par, here's a link to a Google translation of "Reconstitution of Rex Heflin photos" which Gilles mentioned in an earlier comment:

    http://goo.gl/swc1X

    By Blogger JAF, at Saturday, December 29, 2012  

  • This image is about as fake as one can stretch the concept as far as even further stretching the concept of analysis.
    The way cool obvious beekeepers garb..is pretty uninteresting although at least this is could be a low budget attempt at portraying a environmental hazard suit one that a spaceman would require.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, December 30, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home