Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 282

Thread: the cumberland spaceman

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105

    the cumberland spaceman

    hi to all

    this is my first post on the forum. i would be interested in your opinions on a strange case from the year i was born which became known as 'the cumberland spaceman.' this case has always intrigued me because of the connection from 'half way round the world'

    http://www.ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm

    all opinions are welcome (from the healthy skeptic to the 'debunk at all costs' maniac)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    i saw that yesterday before making my post - its definitely a hoax because that style of denim jeans didn't see the light of day 'till at least 1971.

    but seriously folks, jim temleton clearly stated that there was no-one else there when he took the photo - and the guys from the launch site in woomera confirmed that they had seen the exact same figure during the aborted countdown (the film of which went missing - very mysterious)

    here is the clip of mr. templeton being interviewed by jenny randles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mohs91DmtDg

    try this... see if it fits

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,634
    This image is very convincing
    http://www.geocities.com/theysawthem/she_runs.jpg
    I realised a long time ago that it is probably someone with their back to the camera; the running posture fits perfectly, and also explains why the cameraman didn't notice the interloper as he (or probably she) ran past.

    Many photos exist of strange objects which have appeared in photographs without the photographer being aware of them- these are usually fast moving objects such as birds or insects.. In this case it is a running woman.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,365
    Looks to me like someone standing up, to get his/her cigarette lighter or wallet from a tight pocket in their jeans. If (s)he wasn't seen before, (s)he might have been lying down. If the photographer didn't think anyone else was around, the person in the picture might have had the same idea. If (s)he wasn't lying down all in the empty marshes by him/herself, I can even think of circumstances why (s)he'd want a smoke
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,259
    Somebody ran by the camera. Case dismissed, bring in the dancing lobsters.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    It looks more like an inflated balloon figure than a human. The torso, at
    least, looks bloated.

    The head doesn't stand far enough above the shoulders. There's no neck.

    The detail in the head, such as there is, does not make sense for either
    forward or backward.

    The girl makes a shadow on the ground. It would be nice if the background
    figure did, too.

    If the photographer's description and the Kodak analysis are both to be
    believed, I have no explanation for the photo.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,406
    to me it looks like someone wearing a hooded sweatshirt or a combination hooded sweatshirt/hooded windbreaker. I don't doubt that the negative is "original" and "untampered with". There's a pretty deep depth of field so i'd imagine the lens was stopped down a bit. which means it wasn't some kind of insanely fast shutter speed an d even moderate motion would produce a slight blur - the kind of blur a runner might produce. Lack of shadow means nothing as it looks to be about noon judging from the hair shadow of the girl which means you WOULD NOT see a long shadow from the runner in the back.

    It amazes me that something simple - a humanoid shape on film - can be thought to be anything other than something mundane. You can even see shoulder blades for crying out loud.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    hmmm...

    the photograph on it's own is neither here nor there, the interesting aspect of the case is the connection with the aborted bluestreak launch in australia around the same time period - where 2 figures were seen near the bluestreak rocket shortly after reports of ufos in the area (the 2 figures were said to be dressed identically to the one in the photograph)

    btw - hooded sweatshirts? cigarette lighters? girlies running? dancing lobsters? call these scientific approaches?

    so far i'm dissappointed in the responses but i really admire the way everyone seems to want to totally ignore the woomera connection - one comment even said 'case closed'

    come on guys - click your heels together 3 times and think of phillip klass

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,406
    Connection? you are stretching a bit, aren't you? hooded sweatshirts are pretty common amongst the human race. So to have more than one person on the planet wearing one at any given time is not that unusual.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by LotusExcelle View Post
    Connection? you are stretching a bit, aren't you? hooded sweatshirts are pretty common amongst the human race. So to have more than one person on the planet wearing one at any given time is not that unusual.
    hooded sweatshirts in 1964? on a top secret launch facility? you're having a laugh surely?

    ps. have you actually looked at the links i posted? or are you one of these that doesn't need to? you've got all the answera already huh?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,063

    Wink Not a doubt

    I think it is an alien from outer space, duh, what else could it be, really!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Boy View Post
    I think it is an alien from outer space, duh, what else could it be, really!!
    checkmate :surprised

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    68
    That very last picture looks like a photoshop job done completely with the airbrush tool :/

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    192
    That the figures where seen by eyesight at woomera suggests that they are not like the figure from cumberland - which was, evidently, not seen by eyewitnesses, but rather only on film.

    Concerning the cumberland figure, I am not sure there is enough evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion about it. The lack of some details like wrinkles in the clothing, especially in front of the elbow and the scarf or kercheif - places one might expect material to bunch and fold - give the figure a somewhat artificial feel to it. To me, it suggests something like a figurine or action figure. Perhaps something with a helmet and the head turned backwards. But that would also mean that the Templetons hoaxed the picture, and by all accounts, this doesn't seem like the case. On the other hand, the lack of detail may just be a result of the figure being out of focus, which fits more with an upright person a short distance away with their back to the camera. In this case, however, it is hard to fathom how the Templetons did not notice the figure.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    marvin - the figures at woomera were also caught on film (as well as the ufo) but that particular film is the only one missing out of all the bluestreak launches ('co-incidence' number 3)

    on one of the letters that jenny randles uncovered in her research,it says that one 'cant miss' the ufo in the film (the very same film that in due course 'mysteriously' went missing)

    also i dont think that a girl with a scarf looking for her cigarette lighter would attract the attention of 2 of her majesty's 'stooges'

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    boyfromspace.

    What?
    Alien popped up in some obscure picture to say, "Hi Mom!"?

    This is a matter of you perceiving only what you want to perceive.
    When even your own brain knows that it doesn't hold up- you then try drawing connections.
    You drew a connection that doesn't exist- then complained that no one disproved it? how does a person prove a negative?

    Ill draw a connection for ya- I'll even provide a Fun YouTube Video as well.

    The connection leads us to the Set of "Three Men and a Baby."
    Where an alien ghost was also caught on film:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9DmF3Zc24

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The connection leads us to the Set of "Three Men and a Baby."
    Where an alien ghost was also caught on film:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9DmF3Zc24
    Ooohh, Captain Disillusion... I like those... thanks.

    And don't forget the hanging Munchkin in the Wizard of OZ. Er, I mean bird.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    229
    I think there are many cases of "hidden figures" in pictures, supposelly some of them have an explanation when the picture is revealed in the photographic lab, but don't know all the details.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by boyfromspace View Post

    also i dont think that a girl with a scarf looking for her cigarette lighter would attract the attention of 2 of her majesty's 'stooges'
    That's assuming the Men in Black actually visited him. Even the UFO site linked to in your first post admits that Jim Templeton didn't tell a consistent story about his MIB visit.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    229
    Thes MIB are weird, they just came in a jaguar, asked some questions, they got upset, and then left....

    WTF?!
    Last edited by zerocold; 2008-Aug-30 at 03:28 AM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
    That's assuming the Men in Black actually visited him. Even the UFO site linked to in your first post admits that Jim Templeton didn't tell a consistent story about his MIB visit.
    My guess is he saw the picture, got overly excited by it ("it's impossible that I didn't see a figure there! has to be alien!")...then, as people doubted him he felt ever more embarassed/dumb, and therefore did what most people do--got defensive and started exaggeratting then flat-out making up more to the story to "prove" he's not crazy.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
    That's assuming the Men in Black actually visited him. Even the UFO site linked to in your first post admits that Jim Templeton didn't tell a consistent story about his MIB visit.
    To put this in more blunt terms, since I'm not as nice... Templeton lied.
    He had an interesting photograph and was getting an interesting reaction. Or order to facilitate this further he began fabricating stories.

    Now, you may call me harsh- But I find it much more likely that Templeton got carried away by Tall Tales not by Short Aliens.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
    That's assuming the Men in Black actually visited him. Even the UFO site linked to in your first post admits that Jim Templeton didn't tell a consistent story about his MIB visit.
    LaurelHS - the exact words on that link are:


    'As for the next events, the accounts vary a lot:'

    how is this an 'admission' that jim templeton didn't tell a consistent story about his MIB visit? - you have completely distorted the meaning of the sentence - how convenient (yet a very common tactic of the 'salavating maniac debunker') - in my second link (the you tube interview) jim templeton tells his story for all to see. if other people have twisted this story over the years, why accuse templeton of not being consistent? - get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    My guess is he saw the picture, got overly excited by it ("it's impossible that I didn't see a figure there! has to be alien!")...then, as people doubted him he felt ever more embarassed/dumb, and therefore did what most people do--got defensive and started exaggeratting then flat-out making up more to the story to "prove" he's not crazy.
    my guess is..... you guess too much (how scientific of you)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    I'm very scientific; don't you see my white jacket? Thing is, since I have no intimate knowlege of this guy--what he's like, what actually occured, his past actions, what motivates him, etc., I have no choice but to guess. That "guess" is based off of past observations on human behavior. That's the best I can do--that's the best I care to do in this case. Scientific or not, that's what I'm sticking with.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    The first version of the story says the MIB "tried to make him admit" that he had just photographed an ordinary person. Then the second version says Templeton was the one who told the MIB he didn't see anyone. Version 2 says the MIB wouldn't show Templeton any ID, Version 3 says they showed him ID cards. These seemed like inconsistencies to me. That makes me a "salavating [sic] maniac debunker"?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    To put this in more blunt terms, since I'm not as nice... Templeton lied.
    He had an interesting photograph and was getting an interesting reaction. Or order to facilitate this further he began fabricating stories.

    Now, you may call me harsh- But I find it much more likely that Templeton got carried away by Tall Tales not by Short Aliens.
    do you think he fabricated the woomera story? or did he fabricate the documentation in the records office which shows that the relevant departments took this case seriously and investigated it thoroughly?

    templeton claims that the men in black actually visited him at his place of work (the fire station) and he had to ask his boss for time off work to go with these MIBs. if this was not true, i'm sure that someone from the fire station would have said so by now!

    have you any evidence to back up your claims that he lied and fabricated stories? if not, then the following statement must be true:

    'NEVERFLY LIED' - stands to reason really

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    I can't help noticing that you said in your first post that "all opinions are welcome" but when people disagree with you, you accuse them of lying and making fools of themselves.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
    The first version of the story says the MIB "tried to make him admit" that he had just photographed an ordinary person. Then the second version says Templeton was the one who told the MIB he didn't see anyone. Version 2 says the MIB wouldn't show Templeton any ID, Version 3 says they showed him ID cards. These seemed like inconsistencies to me. That makes me a "salavating [sic] maniac debunker"?
    please watch the you tube link - and hear the story from the horses mouth so to speak - dont get all hung up on chinese whispers that will conveniently take you off on a tangent.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-08, 04:21 PM
  2. "Naked Science: Spaceman" BA
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-02, 11:36 AM
  3. Ask a spaceman a question
    By AndyClark in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-07, 06:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •