Comments on: Will British Files Release Solve Alien Photo Mystery?

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:04:31 +0000

Don’t worry, I’m patient

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:14:09 +0000

damn I forgot to do that. trust me–tight white shirts in the 60s.

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:33:08 +0000

Tomorrow I’ll look for some mens’ white 60s’ shirts as an example–but think ‘clockwork orange.’ Tight white mock turtlenecks and whatnot.

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:37:07 +0000

I’m not very convinced but all right; let’s consider that possibility then. There was a person standing in the backgroun and the photographer did not perceive his presence.

But how about the strange attire of the figure? I was thinking, since it is an open field, could tat guy be a beekeper tending an apiary? I did a quick Wikipedy survey, and the kind of suits these guys use are not simmilar to the tightly adjusted white “scuba suit” of the figure in the photo. The beekepers use a very loose clothing.

I guess the mistey will remain

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:09:24 +0000

I do understand your argument about the obvious distraction, but I don’t agree. I feel like it’s apparent that most amateur photographers are completely unaware of the background until the photos are developed. That accounts for all kinds of crazy family photos where the heads are cut off, and tree branches and signs seem to grow out of the subject’s head. It’s a learned skill, to keep the background appropriate and neutral–even keeping it mind on a certain level may not help–because the depth of field with 2 final dimension in the photo is so completely different than viewing it the through viewfinder in 3d. I actually even think this photographer’s insistance that there was no one in the background kind of might ironically give some credence to what we see here.

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:46:49 +0000

I agree that memory is fallible and, as the guys of Cabinet of Wonders recently reminded us, invisible gorillas do like to pop up once in a while

But the reason I doubt this was a standing person is that, since the little girl is apparently the only thing in the foreground on a grassy landscape devoid of any other features (aside from the astronaut of course), then it should have been very clear to the photographer that the shot would be ruined due to that excentric fellow with his extravagant white attire, don’t you think? After all, the thing you are more attentative of during a photograph session is the head of the model, and the astronaut strikes too much from behind the hair of the girl and the blue of the sky.

Our mind may skip some bits of info as a filtering mechanism when there’s too much “white noise” received by the senses. But I do not think this is the case here.

PS: I agree that the figure or person or whatever is clearly showing the back with the right arm flexed and the hand close to the torso.

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:40:21 +0000

Looking on eBay, there’s a 1960s era GI Joe with a compact white cap (that might be consistent with this image) vs. a huge oversize hulking regular astronaut helmet.
With an action figure, it could also account for the body being backwards (which this undoubtably is) and a head facing forward.
(I still think it’s just a person in the field…)

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:41:30 +0000

I just viewed the enlarge version at ufologie as euphmystic mentioned. I think it’s likely this is just a person standing on the hill on the background, which very coincidentally and weirdly does resemble an astronaut. Looking at the larger version, it’s clear that the figure has its backside to the camera. The angle of the bent arm is absolutely consistent with that physiologically–you can see the scapula protruding and everything. I think this person is just wearing a tight white turtleneck (very 1964) and has darker hair (which is what gives the visor image)and there may coincidentally be a cloud above the head from the camera angle, or just a reflection or light, finishing the appearance of the helmet.

It’s a known phenomenon that amateur photographers don’t necesarily pay attention to backgrounds, or peripheral things in the frame. To assume that you could truly recall whether people were around or not, while snapping photos like this seems unlikely. I guess it just seems more likely that there was someone standing there that he did not recall, than to think there is a real astronaut, thoughtform, or anything supernatural in this photo. Memory is notoriously very fallible.

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:39:10 +0000

It’s a good idea, Richelle.

Somebody should buy this book

http://www.amazon.com/Action-Figures-1960s-Schiffer-Collectors/dp/0764304283

By: Richelle Hawks

Richelle Hawks — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:26:00 +0000

To me, it looks like a toy–an action figure. It’s very stylized. I’m wondering if anyone has done any research on this angle? Like comparing known toys or models of that era with the one here?