Will British Files Release Solve Alien Photo Mystery?
On May 23rd, 1964, Jim Templeton took one of the most famous pictures in the history of Ufology-the so-called “Solway Firth” photo. It still remains one of my favorite mysteries. The figure was not observed by the photographer or anyone else when it was taken. Even the Kodak corporation couldn’t figure out how it was done and offered free film for life to anyone who could solve the mystery. The prize remained unclaimed. Templeton later reported Men In Black-type visits.
Then it got even weirder when officials from the Australian space program requested the original negative from Templeton.
From the “UFOs at close sight” site:
Apparently the photograph had appeared in the press there and staff working at the Woomera test range area in Southern Australia had seen it. Jim was told that the day after he took his photograph, a Blue Streak space rocket was due to be launched from Woomera in Australia. The countdown was postponed when two automatic survey camera had independently spotted two large figures in the firing area during the countdown phase. They were very similar in appearance to Jim’s mysterious visitor. At the time of the launch, the photograph had not reached Australia and the staff had no knowledge of the bizarre image.
Now Templeton, 87, is awaiting the forthcoming release of UFO files from the Ministry of Defence to ascertain if his government came to any conclusions on the affair. I predict that the MOD won’t have any better idea than civilian researchers. What the release will probably accomplish will be to add to the database about UFOs, but provide no “answers,” just like the U.S. Government if it decides to take the UK’s lead.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm and is filed under Breaking News, Close Encounters, Conspiracies, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Strange Creatures, UFOlogy, UFOs On Film, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- British X-Files »
- Ask An Astrobiologist »
- UFOs in the Mail »
- UFOs: The UK Files »
- Weird Alien-Like Thing Photographed »
|
Jan 19 2008 
January 20th, 2008 at 4:45 am
It has seemed to me that these so called disclosure releases are nothing more than glorified sightings reports. I am disappointed each time.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I love this story, thanks for posting it. The story itself as a whole, along with the ‘countdown’ mayhem now, taken as simply a text itself, scrapping momentarily all the weirdness and hoax vs. truth questions, is hard to dismiss as meaningless. With the advent of space exploration, it’s possible these figures could fall into the ‘thoughtform’ realm.
The placement of the figure in this photograph couldn’t be more appropriate either. It literally seems to be coming out of her head.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
This is one of the most interesting cases in Jenny Randles book on MIBs. They drove him out to the site and asked him a series of questions and then, “Before I had my wits about me they were halfway back to the car. I could not catch up with them. They got in and drove off, leaving me stranded on the marsh. There was no public transport out there. I had to walk five miles home.”
January 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am
A truly Fortean case, if there ever was one.
The “figure” appears in perfect concordation with the light source too.
I suppose there was never a release of what the australian surveillance camera captured, wasn’t it?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hmm, I don’t know… It looks like a guy in a white wet suit with a streetlight shade on his head. Note the glare on top of the “helmet” that looks like condensation inside.
I don’t see any strange angles or proportions either. If you look at the higher resolution enlargement at ufologie.net you can see that the horizon is tilted downward to the right, and putting your hand on your right hip in a contraposto pose will tilt your shoulers to the right. The figure’s height looks right to me as well. I wish it were real but I don’t think it is.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
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?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
It’s a good idea, Richelle.
Somebody should buy this book
http://www.amazon.com/Action-Figures-1960s-Schiffer-Collectors/dp/0764304283
January 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
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.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
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…)
January 21st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
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.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
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.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
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
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Tomorrow I’ll look for some mens’ white 60s’ shirts as an example–but think ‘clockwork orange.’ Tight white mock turtlenecks and whatnot.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
damn I forgot to do that. trust me–tight white shirts in the 60s.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Don’t worry, I’m patient