I researched this many years ago. A few weeks later Jim was in the newspaper again - this time with a purported picture of a spaceship taking off. Years after that he was in yet again with stories of a haunted tea set. He was known as a joker. I expect the first picture was a happy accident, then he kept the pranks coming.
@@saintessa yes! I kept a screenshot of the spaceship story he did, but unfortunately it is on a dead laptop so I can’t post it. On thinking back he may have said the tea set was cursed rather than haunted. It used to be possible to search his local newspaper archives and read old stories with his name.
@@verynearlyinteresting Tez ... completely off topic but, I'm wondering why my You Tube name has just been changed from Syd North to "@sydnorth5868". I notice that a similar thing seems to have happened to everybody else as well. As a legendary man of RUclips I am relying on you to discover the truth! I am not a number, I am a free man!
As Mum was walking away her face was tilted down, so from the camera's angle only the hair on the very back of her head above the neckline would be visible, not the back of her head all the way to its top. She was looking for wildflowers to pick, not looking out at the moon. Love the new channel! The Bronte sisters photo--100%! It's them!
You came to the same conclusion I did, but for entirely different reasons. I’m an amateur photographer myself and it’s a well known fact that photographers don’t always pay attention to what’s going on ahead of the camera, especially when you are focused on a specific subject. Usually when you go on vacation or take a day trip, you want to take pictures to preserve the memory. People who aren’t into “professional photography” usually just take one and be done. He snapped one picture, wife assumed he was done and began walking across the field, he snapped another, not realizing that she was in frame, then snapped a third. Three different pictures had been taken and it was the middle picture that contained the spaceman. I agree that it was his wife and he just wasn’t paying attention. I have a picture that I took at the ghost town of Bodie and it looks like I was photographing a group of people sitting in a mine car. I hadn’t noticed the people in the shot, nor had I noticed they were lined up perfectly with the mine car. I had my attention elsewhere and I got a funny photo because of it.
He may even have noticed it at the time, but after a week waiting for the developed photos, forgot the details of what happened - I mean, you try and remember the exact circumstances of a specific moment from a week ago? Most people with average memories can't.
Templeton had clearly spent quite some care setting up his daughter's pose with that lovely posy of flowers that they had clearly brought along with them for the purpose - they are not wild. He no doubt had hoped would take a beautiful photo portrait of her in her best dress on a sunny day in a country setting. It was to be in colour too which was not that usual in the early 1960's as well as being much more expensive than monochrome. Strange then that he seems to have been the only photographer ever who bothered to take only one photograph of his subject in a set pose after going to so much trouble to ensure that it would be perfect. But it's not just a snap of his daughter its a well thought out composition. I would bet that its very likely that he took at least one more photo of his daughter in that pose and quite possibly he even took a number of them. He would have been unusually very confident of his own skill and equipment if he hadn't and of course as any parent knows young kids do move and blink and you often don't find that out until the photo is developed . I wonder then what might have happened to all the other photographs on the reel of film that he was using on that day and if anyone has ever asked to see what was on them? There seems to have been at least one other photo that was less formal of his daughter with his wife. Perhaps no one was very interested what else was on the reel because they didn't contain a spaceman. The rest of the reel may have however have given some clue as to where the spaceman had come from. Of course I am thinking of a fleet of spaceships flying overhead.
Also, note that Annie is likely looking down at the grass or flowers, strolling slowly, which is why her head is flattened and the moon (or a cloud - equally likely) can be seen above it more so than if she had been looking ahead at the horizon with her head tilted up.
Yes, definitely the wife and I also thought maybe she was looking down, but also maybe a head scarf, as many women wore in this period. Billowing in the breeze might have given it a dome shape? To definitely confirm it was the moon, we'd need to see the adjacent two photographs, to see if the moon was in them. As for the photographer not seeing her, this is a common fault with amateur photography. How many lamposts have we seen coming out of people's heads? When taking a photograph, many people concentrate on the subject, the daughter in this case and neglect to scan the rest of the frame, hence notvseeing his wife photobombing the snap.
Love how you conclude having never met the man 🤣 " Look at dad" were Jims wifes words to Elizabeth - from BEHIND Jim . Cos 1st pic has Elizabeth looking down & Mum to her left - mum went behind Jim simple as that - Uploader will no doubt make a video next week when the prize arrives from kodak . Started as a years supply of film , now its printers optical toys , state of the art cameras the works = which is why every You Tuber is claiming to have solved it . If its Jims wife 1 question is obvious WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO HAVE KODAK LOOK AT THEM ? If its Mrs T = case closed - cos it aint her ,If Youd simply met the guy when he was alive youd know this !
Thank you, without adding that bit the OPs explanation for the photo lacks plausibility because he's not explained why the head is so small with the 'dome' removed, while with your addition it has some. Personally I think it's as likely to be the photographer is just having a laugh and just hasn't got bored of the occasional attention yet (if he's still with us?), maybe a double exposure of some sort accidental or otherwise or something as simple and basic as a doll of some description or cut out magazine image poked up behind her head. The visit from the 'men in black' is either just the photographer embellishing his story and never happened or a couple of jokers who'd heard about it yanking his chain. Can't say I'm really bothered what it was or how it was done .. though I am marginally amused that anyone might believe it was real, or even that anyone might try to pretend that it was .. if anyone is interested I have these genuine photos of fairies from Cottingley around the turn of the century 😁 I can only imagine it must have been a real slow news day when the papers decided to carry this one back in the day.
@@philmartin5689 Wow you are right! If the other two photos were taken in the same time period, the moon would be visible and this theory confirmed. That bothers me though, as surely someone investigating this would have examined the other two photos and noticed the moon, and come to a similar conclusion? They obviously didn't!!?
From the very first time I saw this photo years ago... it always looked like a person dressed up in a space suit costume standing in the background. I never was convinced this could be an alien. The bigger mystery to me about this photo is why was it ever taken seriously?
@@filonin2 Good question. This could be explained in 2 to 3 minutes. This was proved to be his wife decades ago. Some RUclipsrs really scrape the bottom of the barrel.
The most logical explanation I have ever heard on this subject. I agree 100% on the viewfinder issue. My very first foray into photography was using a cheap 110 intsamatic camera that nearly always added or left out significant parts of a subject I was attempting to capture. It took a lot of experimenting to allow for that deficiency.
Problem is, he would have seen the moon with his eyes both before and whilst framing the shot. He would have remembered if his composition had been ruined by someone walking into shot.
With all due respect to everyone. This guy in the video makes everyone focus on that bs moon theory he decided was there, at 8:40 they show a foto of the wife Annie next to the child and you can clearly see Annies arms, her width from biceps to triceps is very thin and she is close to the camera, now if she was far from the camera her arms would look even thinner, now at 7:10 screen shot that image and zoom in the person behind the child you can clearly see the back of that person and his elbow is pointed to the camera, look at those arms the width is thick from biceps to triceps its a much bigger arm than Annies thin arm at 8:40. That is not Annie . This guy in the video sounds like Neil deGrass Tyson, look up that video of him explaining how Earth is like an oblate spheroid and is less than nothing turns Earth into a Pear shape.
The Moon wasn't there. The Moon didn't rise until after 5 o'clock on that day and it rose in the East. Look at the girl's shadow, the camera is facing West.
Makes sense ... but @ 1:08 wouldn't it be easy to confirm your theory if we take a look at the other two photos he took of Annie where the 'spaceman' didn't appear? We should see that same waxing moon without her, correct? Are they available? That, to me, seems like the key to end this photo mystery 😀
EXCELLENT job! The only thing I would add is that I would guess that Annie happened to be _looking down_ (perhaps at some wildflowers) when the shot was taken, which meant more of the moon beyond her could be seen, instead of her head. Liked & subscribed, and looking forward to more interesting videos!
As a 7 or 8 year old in the 1970's, my first question when seeing this on tv ( some UFO programme or other) was why the spaceman's elbow was facing the wrong way.
Good job! Also worth noting; The bend of the elbow informs us the figure is facing away from the camera, and we wouldn't expect to see a visor on the back of a head.
also looks as though the person is wearing a HOODIE, you can see the hood on the shoulders, plus to me the are looking down and to the right slightly, I believe that may be a hat on top of the head and the back of the head has maybe a pony tail or just longer hair.
@@FRANKO-iu3dx except people didn't wear "hoodies" in the UK during 1964, no it's probably a head scarf as most women used to wear then. My mother certainly did.
Finding a RUclips presenter who does not jump on the usual conspiracies is refreshing. All very informative, I have subscribed. :) Stop the music. You don't need it.
Thank you so much for subscribing Bill, means a lot! I did say this on my other reply to you but I do appreciate your feedback in relation to the music. Tez 😊
A really awesome analysis of this case. I had always known this story as the "Cumberland spaceman". I think your theory is the best contender, as answers pretty much all the Qs with data backed, most probable answers. But just one question remains... How did his wife also get in the shot of the security cameras at the nuclear facility in Australia??? ;-)
I think we only have Templeton's word that this happened. He didn't publicise the source, other than a letter to the Daily Mail. The trail seems to end precisely there.
Great explanation and very plausible, I saw this image when I was around 14 years and never stopped thinking about it, the husband obviously lied when he said there wasn't anyone around but her daughter, and this contributed to the legend
Yeah, his wife was there the picture is there in this video. Well done to the uploader who obtained it. Dont buy the moon theory though, his wife is just wearing a headscarf.
If we checked the 2 other photos of the daughter, we could see if the moon was in the sky. If it wasn't, I would say it's also possible the mother was wearing a head scarf that caught the wind. On a sunny day in the 1960's head scarfs were pretty common ladies picnic attire.
Looking at the figure through the lens of it being the mother's back. I believe she is wearing a kerchief on her head and is looking slightly to the right which shows the side of her glasses. This story fascinated me when I read about about years ago. Your analysis makes sense, brilliant work.
No it doesn't: because he hasn't provided any almanac data PROVING that the moon was full that day: and could be seen from that position, at that place and time. Anyway, d'you know what? I've found from experience that the moon generally looks TINY in most photographs; smaller than it appears to the naked eye. I looked this up and the internet said it was because of some kind of atmospheric effect.
This was 1964, film was expensive as was processing. Nobody took 'several' pictures in the days of film cameras. There were only 24 shots on the roll, which were probably used over a longish period.
@@thefreemanarchives6220not strictly true many wealthy amateur photographers would regularly take 2 or 3 images, bracketing the exposure, one under exposed one at correct metering and one over, hence the 3 images, 35mm is available in 36 exposures also, some cameras being half frame types can potentially take 72 images. Hope this helps 😊😊
@bregosanto Very good question. Photographer said he took 3 pics of the daughter in a similar pose.. Considering the position of the sun controls the direction of photo, all other pics taken around this time would most likely contain the moon's presence in the background. I doubt these happened to be the last 3 pics on that roll, so others were likely taken that day as well.
@@thefreemanarchives6220 In the 60s and 70s, I remember, most people wanting to see/hold/show the pics as soon as possible after taking them, same as today. I remember the common practice of "using up the rest of a roll" to allow for safe removal of the roll without over exposing earlier pics. Maybe it was different in the UK.
That was an excellent explanation of what caused this anomaly. It makes sense. I understand that people want it to be something other worldly but it’s not. I saw the interview with one of the two men that rigged the touchstone photo of the Loch Ness that is still used today as proof. He explained in detail how he and his friend setup the whole thing with a couple of toys and creative photography. People just ignored him. The man who did the camera work for the famous Bigfoot film finally confessed. He promised his friend to wait until he died before going public. It was a man in a costume. The man’s wife backed up the friend’s confession. “Experts” still refer back to that film and go into great detail describing how the movements and appearance are not human but some unknown bipedal missing link. People just seem to need to believe in these urban legends. No amount of logic will convince them. The “experts” have made a cottage industry out of feeding on the fantasies.
If you're referring to the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot, then no, neither of them confessed. One of them maintained until the day he died that it was real, and the other eventually said he was willing to accept that he might have been fooled, but that he wasn't part of it.
@@surfdigby It was several years ago when the surviving of the two was on Hard Copy and confessed. It was quite a while because I was still living in California at the time.
@@pamelasimone5084 what can I Google to find something that confirms this? I've tried "bob gimlin confession hard copy" and there's no results. The only thing remotely close is the comment he made on X-Creatures, which I mentioned above.
@@surfdigby I’ll check. I remembered the episode. I also remember a segment from one of the History Channel’s series on Nessie. A man confessed he and a couple of his friends faked the iconic Loch Ness Monster footage. They mounted a plastic dinosaur model on a remote control submarine toy. They sent the footage to a news show. They expected it to be exposed immediately but once it made news, they decided to keep quiet.
It's also possible that the woman had her head slightly inclined forward, glancing at the ground in front of her, which would explain why the head of the figure seems shorter than a head should be. Combined with being out of focus, it explains the illusion of a helmeted figure.
I always figured being slightly out of focus, moving her head at the time, and light reflection (off shiny hair?) could all account for the head - especially in combination. Headscarf and/or an inclined head are also possibilities.
As for the content and presenter both are excellent, it's a compelling theory well thought out and presented in a way that guides the viewer through the process while still leaving them free to come to their own conclusion, I for one am just glad we can't prove the theory life is way more fun with a little mystery involved. Love your work mate keep it up you've more than earned a subscription and UP vote 👍
I like the explanation it’s his wife accidentally walking into the frame which is why he took a third shot … in case the first one was also spoiled. When the guy in the processing shop suggested the “spaceman” explanation … he decided to go along with the idea … to the end of the road … You can see a tiny white fragment of receding footwear heel showing below the daughter’s hair on the right hand side… a different intensity to the white blotches in the moor’s foliage. … suggesting a foot on terra firma. Don’t like the ‘moon’ explanation because it’s the wrong colour, no lunar blotching, and it oddly loses it’s definition on the right side of her head with no cloud obscuring that area … also notice the top of her hair is slightly ‘lost’ … when her head doesn’t appear tilted downwards to that degree. Looking carefully, I feel his wife could have been wearing a summery Jackie ‘O’ hat from the 1960’s… a pill box style in white… as seen in link below, if you scroll near bottom of page … her’s could have had a better defined white veil going around the whole thing protecting her from the sun. vintagedancer.com/1960s/1960s-hats-styles-womens-hat-history/ You can see the curve of the lower rim of the hat on the right edge periphery. This explains why her hair at the top is ‘suppressed’ from view … and your interesting ‘moon theory’ doesn’t quite fit … nice try👍 … but no cigar! 🤔
The moon wasn't visible from the Carlisle area in the early afternoon of 23 May 1964. The Chapelcross cooling towers are visible in the right of the photo so the camera is facing North West, across the Firth. The shadows show the time is near noon, I'm guessing about 1:30pm local time. You can look up where the moon was at that time. It was above Australia. Having said that - great video. I'm all for people analysing this stuff!
In our family album, there's a photo that my dad took of my mum while they were on holiday in the Med. My mother was always pointing out that my dad had only gone and included a large bare-breasted woman in the shot, hadn't he, standing some distance behind her. After many years of her pointing this out to all and sundry, I took a harder look at the photo: the bare-breasted woman was, in fact, a man.
You'd be surprised how often that kind of thing happens. I scanned a photo for a friend that had been printed in reverse. You could could see that all the text in the image was backwards. She had me return it to the wrong way as that's what she was used to looking at. But, things like that do happen fairly often if you're not looking closely at it.
LOL at the dude going to the police. "Hello? Police department? Yes, there was a man in a spaceman outfit who was in the background of a picture I took in a public place. I want him looked into. Why are you laughing?!"
The camera never lies... except in this case! It would be interesting to see the other two photos, especially if taken from the same angle at roughly the same time... there should be a moon in the picture. It's true that when concentrating on the foreground you often don't look closely enough at the background. It's possible that he wife walked into shot without him noticing.
One would think that if it was the moon, perfectly lined up with his wife's head as she strolled uphill behind their daughter, then that same moon would be visible, unobscured by the wife, in the other two photos. Since the anomaly only showed up on the middle of three images taken closely together in time, I've always thought that it was something that happened when the film was being developed. A bubble or blob of developing chemicals, or a light leak into the canister of developing film. Pinhole cameras and photography darkroom work was part of my High School Art classes. Ordinary film cameras & film processing were part of my Yearbook staff activities. Weird things happened when you were on a tight budget and tried to develop too many photos with a single batch of chemicals, rather than using a fresh batch for each run of processing.
Another potential explanation for why most of her head is not visible is because she was probably looking down. I really wish it was an alien or a space man with some kind of experimental cloaking device, but I think it's probably just the photographers wife.
I'm still convinced it's his wife wearing a white pill box hat (60's style) and veil ... who later pulled on a tightish white cardigan and a headscarfe around her neck when the wind picked up ... some sort of matching white footwear. We can discount the Moon and cloud explanations as they are nowhere to be seen in shots 1+3. Hope this helps.
One more thing about the apparent small size of the head. The camera is looking at an upwards angle, and if she was looking down at something, the size would appear small. I think this pretty much clears up the whole thing. Certainly more likely than a spaceman appearing long enough for a picture, then disappearing again.
Clearly isn’t looking upwards. You’re shit with angles if u think that’s pointed upwards. If it was the kids would be at a different angle too…. Wtf man? Basic stuff.
I do remember reading about this in Fortean Times a while ago now (possibly around the same time as The Hallam University professor's explanation in 2012), where they did a deep analysis and explanation of the photos. They came to the same conclusion of the girl's mum being in the photo, but (I think as my memory is sketchy) wearing a headscarf instead of it being the moon. Also, you can see what looks like the frame of her glasses/sunglasses on the right side as you look at her head, which I don't think I'd ever seen or realised before until now. However, it doesn't explain Jim Templeman's experience of the MIB (if ever that did happen) or what was seen at Woomera (no photos showing it, just the word of the 2 workers at the missile range saying they'd seen the same 'being'). Maybe though the MIB story came about because of what was seen at Woomera and it being a possible link that interested them, but then dropped it whe they realised it wasn't linked? It also doesn't explain why his wife (as far as we know) never mentioned anything about walking in to the photo and acknowledging that in fact it is her in the photo. Seems like there are still more questions to be answered than we realise. Next stop: The Ilkley Moor 'alien' photo perhaps? 🙂
Did he just go through this theory, to show how crazy other theories are? Very well done and surprisingly entertaining and a great storyteller as well.
@@truthbebold4009 Apparently not. I was surprised when watching the video to see he did not show evidence of where the moon should be on that day, its a distraction anyway and I believe the white spot can be explained by sun glare on her head.
Very well done 👏 I've known about this for a long time and it popped up as a suggestion for me. Surprising this hasn't been done professionally before now.
my father always said it was the wife. he (and i) were interested in the paranormal. but he was adamant that the wife had strayed into the photo. he would have loved this channel.
It's his wife... u can clearly see she had some kinda collar on that dress and it looks almost like a scarf from behind... it's his wife, over exposed in the bright sunshine.
The final "shot" featuring a similar figure (facing toward the subject and camera) sealed it for me. It is a perfect illustration of what a human left elbow actually looks like when facing front, and not when facing in the other direction. It's just a little thing that has been irritating me every time I see this story told from the point of view of a person who believes they see a spaceman. Thank you! Take my like and sub.
Interesting video and theory. If it was his wife in the background how come she didn't spot herself in the photo and admit it was her rather than mislead UFO researchers and those interested in the paranormal? Has the intended subject of the photo ( the little girl) ever been interviewed as a grown woman? It would be fascinating to hear her take on what happened that day.🤔
It’s possible they may not recognize themselves. If her has and was taking photos of their daughter she probably walked into the shot accidentally. While I think he’s nailed the explanation you can see how someone could mistake that as a spaceman…in the absence of any other explanation.
The woman wouldn't have been seen through the view finder. She probably didn't know she was in frame. Oddly enbough, for "new" evidence, I'd seen this photo explained years ago.
I always thought it was the wife in the background, with wind billowing her dress. It looks ike a fairly breezy day. The moon theory is a new one on me, but very plausible. I also think, that once they realised people were hooked on the "spaceman" mystery, they continued the story to keep the mystery going and have a wee chuckle to themselves over the years. Thanks for retelling the story, always love a twist to a mystery 😊
Adding, She's looking down at her feet, maybe observing the grass, surveying whatever she's looking at, which makes her head look smaller. Her head is looking downwards. He's so focused (No Pun Intended) on getting the shot, he's likely fiddling with the Camera, and hadn't noticed his wife got up to walk where she gets in the frame. Then he's still managing his Camera, unaware where she is, until he's done with it. By that time, Husband's mind is off the Camera and notices his wife has changed location, possibly away from where the shot was done. Whatever adjustments he was Doing on the Camera, to him it felt like 5 seconds, in reality it was 35 seconds?? (guessing) edited in: Remember, he had a week to wait for the pictures to return from developing. He then relies on what transpired that day. His Recall puts his wife behind him, and when he's done with the photoshoot, Annie is already somewhere else. I also notice it looked like a slightly windy day, judging how her hair is misplaced. This wind can mask Annie's foot steps near him, he didn't hear her and she didn't want to disturb his concentration. Those old cameras, you really needed to be steady and still as possible for a clear picture.
Yes. I even thought it was the moon before the explanation part of the video came up. And the elbow told me it was the back of someone, not the front. Excellent work! Subbed! Cheers from 🇨🇦! 😊
I have no idea why this photograph caused so much of a sensation. It was clearly someone standing with their back to the camera. When you see the other photographs of that day you can see it was another family member.
I agree it shouldn't have taken THIS long, but I will say it's easier to have it broken down digitally on modern computers than just a still photograph with no supporting images released side by side with it.
Your right it is his wife. But the moon stuff is too complicated. It's much simpler than that. She is wearing a light coloured headscarf (very common in the day)and her head is turned slightly to right, so we catch a pair sunglasses she's wearing.
Well, I'm convinced. I never did think this was anything other than something quite ordinary presenting itself as extra-ordinary due to misinterpretation. I think you've nailed it here. Great video.
@@oneoflokis doesn't always require an expert to explain something. I'm not convinced this is anything out of the ordinary. Yes, we all want to believe in the marvellous and wonderful, but just cos that's more fun and interesting, it doesn't make it the truth.
I have the same view. I also think that many people including the photographer have gone to great lengths to present the alien space,an theory for financial gain. I don’t believe the photographers men in black story and how it influenced space programs. This is nothing more than lies and embellishment to give the story more credibility. Has anyone spoken to the little girl, who is probably about 70 years old now?
I agree. I think some people don't want to go with the obvious because they deem it boring. I'm with you though, the real world is far more interesting. Tez :)
@@verynearlyinteresting and some don't want to go with the obvious because they want to feel special. It's fundamentally an elitist attitude, they think they know better than anyone else who accepts the blatantly obvious.
@@verynearlyinteresting yes it's quite common and probably something we've all engaged with at some time or other. When we were kids it was the bands we followed but then it's just frivolous however with others it gets more serious, especially when you get into the bounds of conspiracy thinking. Flat earthers really do think they are superior to the rest of us duped into thinking globally and it's visible in a whole range of other beliefs.
I found the breakdown of the photo composition bang on and I have seen this photo many times in the past when I was younger in the newspaper and recently in UFO documentaries and I have always considered the mother back explanation as the arms are bent forward at the elbow. Have you considered looking into the 1980 Rendlesham forest UFO as many de bunkers seem to blame the distant lighthouse as being the light in the trees but they were reporting orange / red light flashing, I think lighthouse lights are white, also others state the lighthouse shone out to sea and had a brick wall screening the light going in land ........just a thought
Hi Mart, thanks for your lovely comment. I’ve already covered the Rendlesham UFO would you believe, if you scroll back a few on the channel you’ll see it. Tez
He took 3 photo's, with this being the middle one, she could easily have time to get in front of the girl during the time he took the first photo, then wound the film on and took the second, and time again to get out of shot by the time he took the third. It would be interesting to see the 1st and 3rd one to see if there was any part of her in them.
The Moon wasn't there. The Moon didn't rise until after 5 o'clock on that day and it rose in the East. Look at the girl's shadow, the camera is facing West and it's midday..
I remember when I saw this photo in a compilation of creepy and paranormal photos for the first time I found it quite scary, but probably more because of the "this is a creepy unknown ghost" explanation along with scary music. Some years later I saw it again and already thought: "That must be a person in a white dress who was overexposed by the sunlight that got in the background without him noticing."
I have followed this story since the early 1970's when I saw the picture in a school library book on UFO"s. It always intrigued me. Something that never occurred to me until now. Did anyone ask the wife/mother if she was in the camera frame ? BTW great video and channel. I have subscribed.
Probably, although they probably didn't expect for the image to get this famous. At a certain point, I doubt they could own up to it, even if they wanted to without looking like con artists.
Wait perhaps Annie had her head pointed down at the moment of exposure so that the piece of the moon was visible (and the head would look unnaturally small) in the photograph? I like your explanation. I like it a lot. 🎉
It's the first time I've seen this image but what struck me as odd was that we are seeing the back of a figure because of the orientation of the arms and elbows. At the same time we are led to believe we are seeing a visor of some sort. This would mean the head is turned 180° which is not possible. Unless humanoid aliens walk around with their heads on back to front that is.
As humans, we inherently want to find an explanation for things that we can't understand by fitting them into a narrative that we can understand.... sometimes forcefully.
I find that it's a good idea to maintain an element of flexibility by always reserving some degree of uncertainty, even if it's a miniscule amount. This mean it allows a certain amount of speculation and makes the consideration of new evidence much easier as it is less threatening to one's own identity, which can be an egotistical restriction if one is 100% certain.
@@DAVIDE-bk8by Don't you get the irony of your own statement?! You want to believe so much that you'd go for "aliens" rather than someone's wife being in the background ^-^ You should look into Richard C. Doty, the guy was CIA, paid to spread UFO BS. UFOs literally are a CIA psyop... As disappointing as it is... You should also look into Paul Bennewitz. The army literally drove him insane by making him believe that the signals he intercepted were from alien origin... They even sent poorly encrypted messages so he could decipher them ^-^ (when I say "literally insane", I mean it. The guy ended up in an asylum) So, most of the UFO stories of the previous century were fake CIA BS... Where do people get their UFO info these days?... Oh, that's right... The freaking Pentagon ahahahahaha You guys are falling for a literal psyop. UFO are a CIA invention, literally. Trust me, I wish it wasn't the case but it is. It is well documented but what's the motto of the "UFO community" again? "I want to believe"... But you want to believe... So, no amount of proof will convince you. But at least, someone tried to warn you... UFOs are a CIA psyop.
With all due respect to everyone. This guy in the video makes everyone focus on that bs moon theory he decided was there, at 8:40 they show a foto of the wife Annie next to the child and you can clearly see Annies arms, her width from biceps to triceps is very thin and she is close to the camera, now if she was far from the camera her arms would look even thinner, now at 7:10 screen shot that image and zoom in the person behind the child you can clearly see the back of that person and his elbow is pointed to the camera, look at those arms the width is thick from biceps to triceps its a much bigger arm than Annies thin arm at 8:40. That is not Annie . This guy in the video sounds like Neil deGrass Tyson, look up that video of him explaining how Earth is like an oblate spheroid and is less than nothing turns Earth into a Pear shape.
You make a good argument. I think you got it. Though I don't buy he didn't see her because of the viewfinder. She's literally poking out from behind the photo's subject. That said he probably saw her, but he didn't notice her. As someone who has an interest in photography this has happened to me as well. You don't realize people or objects are in the frame because you're too focused on the subject itself.
I LOVE ❤ your rational and analytical approach! Level-headed analysis is much more fascinating and satisfying than all those wackadoo conspiracy theories and UFO fantasies. The best known photograph story was of course the Cottingley Fairies which convinced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that fairies were real, even though it was patently obvious the fairies had been drawn on paper and artistically arranged for the shot.
This is a better explanation than a spaceman that nobody saw at the time. After the shot they would have still been there and someone would have seen them.
Oh no, definitely a spaceman, I mean we have no proof, and there's absolutely NO evidence, but yeah, lets all pretend it was a spaceman with backwards arms...
I tried to teach a group of 12 year olds about this story. I started off by saying clearly that the mom walked in front of the camera, you can see what she wore that day, and the sleeves. Didn't matter what I said, they were already debating how a spaceman could have gotten there, without having ever heard of this story before. Kill me already.
That's hilarious James. Brave man trying to teach this to 12 year olds ... they'll still be sure it's a spaceman in 50 years I reckon. It's all good fun though. Tez :)
Yes. Well both you and the "social scientist" are clearly wishful thinkers: as the "figure" clearly has a "costume" with FULL-LENGTH SLEEVES; PLUS a helmet. Plus NOTHING else in the photo is over-exposed: the girl is perfectly exposed, as her father had training in photography. And the moon thing is a red herring. You would need to compare the date and the time of the photograph to a meteorological chart of the time, to see if it was even possible that a "gibbous" moon would be viewable in the sky at that date, time and place. Which sites like this don't bother. They just advance "theories". B*locks. 👎
It's unlikely to be the moon. According to Stellarium, on May 23, 1964, the Moon first appear over the E/SE horizon around 6pm and would not be at the required elevation until after 9pm (dusk). As one, earlier comment, suggested it is most likely a cloud. Other than that I agree it's definitely the back of mum. This looks like an interesting new channel and I will be subscribing.
I agree, mostly, but the bit about the moon seems a bit of a stretch. It might be worth using an astronomical program such as stellarium to precisely determine the position of the moon in the sky at the time the picture was taken. As the mysterious figure was so over exposed, might the white dome on the head simply be the sun reflecting off the top of her hair? Compare the way the sun is reflecting off the daughter's hair in the foreground and then imagine that wildly overexposed
HOW can one subject in a photograph be correctly exposed, and the other be grossly over-exposed? Unless one is in shade and the other in bright sunlight, this cannot be the case! 😏
Very good! You are the first examiner to show any of the other photos taken that day. It would also be good to see the other two photos that bracketed this one if it was "the middle shot" as he described. If the moon shows in those, case closed. But nooooo.... that might challenge 60 years of magical thinking! We can't do that, right? Ha ha. And why does her head look too small? She was probably looking down for a second to get her footing on the hill.
I agree that this is the photographer's wife. But I also think it was a prank from the beginning and she wore something white on her head. The Moon hypothesis does not make any sense to me because the Moon would be *behind* the standing figure, not in front of her. Also where is the Moon on the other pictures? Do we know what time they were taken to calculate the zenith angle of the Moon at that time?
I remember seeing this photo years ago, it was obvious to me then and its still obvious. It's not faked. It's not a spaceman. It's the back of a woman wearing a headscarf. Probably one of the two old women the man who took the photo admitted to seeing. Case closed.
I remember seeing that image when I was about 5 and it scared the shit out of me 😮 I'd forgotten about until now lol...but you've definitely cracked it as far as I'm concerned! Great video
I don’t know much about this photo. But in 1978 while driving from Liverpool to aberdeen in the same general area. My dad spotted a cone shape in the sky which was green moving across the horizon . I was only young but I remember it clearly enough. My dad was an ex w02 in the army who took things seriously. I remember him saying “what the hell is that”? Long time ago that. A strange phenomenon.
The coincidence of the timing of the shot, the darling daughter seated in front of the moon, the walking mother behind her & before the moon. What are the odds ? Not to mention, the other shots, where is the moon in them? Looks to me like a quick plan came to fruition. Great photography. This is a Awesome Channel. Have a good day !
I’m fairly satisfied that this is indeed the mum, I don’t think she’s 10 feet tall or that the lighting defies physics, it’s just her standing in the sun behind her daughter, with the wind blowing her hair forward & I think there were just so many people desperate to preserve the _possibility_ that this might still be some strange, alien spaceman or something equally paranormal, that’ll forever be looking for oddities, regardless of how straightforward this is. As someone myself, who does believe in some aspects of the paranormal, as a kid I wanted this to be something ‘other’ but as I got older & saw the image pop up again & again, the more pragmatic side of my mind keeps seeing someone with their back to the camera & when that other photo appeared of the mum on the grass it was pretty obvious this was her in the other photo & my thinking was rather than her walking _into_ the shot, it actually looks more like she was initially crouching & probably stood up suddenly into shot, still facing away from the camera. It’s an instant in time, a photo capturing an odd image in a fraction of a second that is being recalled with normal, human inaccuracy. Not a spaceman, just a brightly, sunlit from behind, spacemum.
I like your explanation. I think you found the answer. When she was bending down to pick up flowers behind the head of her child, she was invisible by him. When she stood up, with her body and head a bit bent to look at other flowers, the photo was taken. Notice the little girl has a bouquet of flowers in her hand.
It would be interesting to know how much time elapsed between each photo being taken and hence, why the mother was in one shot and not the other two. Also, is it possible to know if the photographer, the girl, the mother and the moon could have been aligned at that point in time.
Probably enough time for her to wander into frame for one shot and then out of it the next. Keep in mind that this was taken in the late '60s by an amateur photographer. Cameras were manual at that time and while it could have been taken more quickly, if he was repositioning and refocusing and interacting with the daughter, that would be more than enough time for the wife to wander around for reasons that are likely lost to history.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade They should ask Mrs Templeton if she remembers wandering in that area while her daughter had her pics taken. I remmber I think it was on Strange But True there was a facility nearby where people were wearing spaceman like costumes and they thought it was someone from there who had wondered into shot but think it was probably Mrs Templeton wo wandered into shot.
I have a very open mind on the ET hypothesis. I have looked at acres of reports on the subject but can I just say that I cannot imagine that if a " real alien " turned up in the middle of this photo shoot, he/she would not be wearing what looks like a costume from Thunderbirds. On the face of it, it does resemble a " NASA type " space suit from the mid sixties, but then again, if ET is supposedly so far advanced from us, he's going to have something a bit more hi-tech than what is shown here. It kinda reminds me of the early " Flash Gordon " TV programs where some of the " aliens " wore Roman Centurian's helmets complete with crest ???? They wouldn't have looked out of place in Ben Hur !
It seems the Moon rose above the horizon that day around six in the evening. You can check with astronomy apps, but I think it's more likely we're looking at a random cloud; One that was much closer than the others in shot. It would have been getting on past kiddo's bedtime, before the Moon would have been high enough in the sky to become mum's hat, but clouds you can find any old place, in any old shape. I love the zeal you give in your investigation. There are plenty of likelier possibilities than in popular belief and it's refreshing to hear them thoroughly discussed.
It doesn't explain the figures at the launch site, but this is brilliant. The reason Annie does not appear in the other two photographs of Elizabeth is that they were picking flowers. She bent down, stood up for this crucial photograph, and then bent back down.
@@Psichotica7 photographer Jim Templeton said that a Blue Streak missile launch at the Woomera Test Range in South Australia was aborted because the figures of two large men were seen on the firing range. He claimed that technicians later saw his photograph in an Australian newspaper and found the figures to be exactly the same. I don't know if these technicians were ever identified and asked. I think this and the men in black story were concocted by Templeton for attention.
@corneliashields9202 exactly. We only have his word for that story, but in any case the whole point of the "spaceman" story is that the figure doesn't look distinctive, it looks like an astronaut, so the Australia story is simply that people dressed as astronauts were seen, which has no obvious connection to this story, other than the person telling it.
A bird (seagull?) is trying to chase the girl away. The birds head is blurry due to rapid movement (helmet) and the wings are close to the body, looking like a spacemans arm. I agree a bird normally doesn't looks like this, but a bird CAN look like this.
I've seen this image everywhere in various media over the decades. Like most folks, I thought: "Well, it HAS to be an alien! What else could it be?!" Now, 59 years later, after some thorough analysis and first-rate detective work on your part, I suddenly have the Bonzos playing in my head: "I'm the Solway Spaceman, baby; here comes the twist---I don't exist."
It looks like you might be getting free film development for the whole year 😊 But to be 100% sure we would need to know if the Moon was visible on the two additional pictures right? If the composition and location is similar to the one with the spaceman, the Moon should be present on the two normal photos as well - right?
An interesting and well executed analysis and most likely correct. A couple of points though. The RAF base was not RAF at that time, the area is over 30miles away and was only ever used to test the rocket engines. Also although spelled Burgh it is always pronounced Bruff by locals like myself.
I love listening to non Australians attempting to pronounce Aussie place names, always cracks me up when they inevitably cock it up, and Woomera is not even a really hard example, even the spellchecker on RUclips doesn't like it and has underlined it as a misspelling, imagine if it encountered something a little trickier like Umberumberka for instance and it would have a melt down if it saw Mamungkukumpurangkuntjunya, cop that !
It was the girl's mother; the photographer's wife. Other photos from the same day show her wearing the same clothing, and there has never been a mystery at all. However, the father seldom if ever displayed the other photos from the same day, and so deliberately encouraged the 'mystery' to continue. He was something of a 'joker' if not an outright hoaxer, though frankly one does wonder how anyone over the age of ten could ever have taken the 'Solway Spaceman' seriously at all.
Came here to make sure someone else had made this comment. I think the reality is more interesting than the fiction - the fact that the illusion of a “spaceman” is so much easier for some people to believe says a lot about the human mind.
@@soniaellis163 try looking at the original picture. The sun is behind the camera, making the girl's shadow behind her, which means her Mother's couldn't possibly be seen, as it's behind everything in the picture, and the girl's Mother is standing on top of the hill, her shadow would be hidden anyway. And of course you can just do 5 minutes of research and see the other photos taken that day. But you won't. You're afraid to be wrong. Don't be a puppet, be a thinker.
@@soniaellis163given where the child’s shadow is cast it’s pretty obvious that the shadow cast by the figure is going to be obscured by the child in the foreground.
Well done mate! I can totally see it. In fact, I can't UNSEE her mum behind her. There's other details too that give it away, like her head shawl that's slung back over between her shoulder blades. If hoodies had been invented back then, I'd have said she was wearing one and that was just the hood.
I found this very nearly interesting. I was always sceptical about this picture but this deconstruction provides a logical and reasoned breakdown to what we would call today a photobomb. One extremely important consideration is that of viewfinder coverage. Also, given that a second photo exists from the same session where the mother has been caught just inside the frame demonstrates either the poor coverage or the photographers lack of awareness before firing the shutter. Now then... Onto the Phoenix Lights... 😊
Thank you very much for your comment, very good point about the viewfinder issue! (And I’m glad you found it very nearly interesting!) I’ve had a few suggestions now regarding future videos … and Phoenix Lights has just been added to the list 😉. Thank you, Tez.
Just one problem: If the husband debunked the claim that the figure was his wife because she was standing behind him before and during his taking of the photograph, surely both he and the daughter would have noticed that the wife had moved her position to BEHIND the little girl when he lowered the camera AFTER taking the photograph. "What are you doing over there, darling? I thought you were behind me."
Yes that’s the biggest mystery of all. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that such a small and insignificant detail (at the time) wouldn’t be remembered … don’t forget you had to wait a week to get your photos back in those days. Tez
She'd probably moved at the point he lowered the camera, remember that he took another shot after than one. If this was an SLR then all the settings were manual and that would take some time to set, you couldn't see the result so if you could afford the film you'd generally take 3 shots with slightly different settings to make sure you got a good one.
I always thought it was the mom it instead of the moon being over her head, I thought it was a weird trick of light on her head. I have a photo that was taken during a sunny day and somehow it looks like I have white in my hair even though my hair is black
Very intriguing and plausible as long as the photographer was incorrect about where his wife was at the time. There's also the question of the similar beings being spotted at the rocket launch shortly thereafter. A definite mystery.
Totally logical and likely explanation. Unfortunately a lot of people still believe aliens make crop circles, even after two blokes blew the whole thing apart and showed how they did it, so convincing the same people that photo wasn't aliens is like p****ing against the wind 😂
If you actually look into the two UK guys and the crop circles they actually made they were very unimpressive. They couldnt even keep a line straight at night with his little loop on his hat. Theirs also exhibited none of the unusual properties that make some crop circles interesting. Like the circles where plants even years later plants in that same area dont grow normally.
Yeah, I think now its students pranking people and using some fairly straightforward geometry and tools making up the original design on the 'ol laptop sizing it up and stuff. Must be a few 'teams' trying to outdo each other. As for plants not growing normally, some weedkillers or the like will do the trick.
Its funny the credibility of some of these stories as being paranormal waxes and wanes with time I find, I'm now convinced that this photo is of his wife but I saw a tv show the other day that explained that in many crop circles found in Wiltshire the storks of the crops (usually wheat) were not damaged in other words it therefore could not be done by two men trampling the crops with a piece of wood. Also some crop circles are simply too detailed, extensive and complicated to simply be done by two or more pranksters and often the circles appear in relatively short periods of time so whilst some small crop circles may have been done by pranksters others it seems were not.
😮 That is so obvious now! I can’t believe nobody saw this before. I always thought the ‘spaceman’ looked too much like a doll being held up behind her. Brilliantly explained, love the channel, subscribed 👏🏻
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
I researched this many years ago. A few weeks later Jim was in the newspaper again - this time with a purported picture of a spaceship taking off. Years after that he was in yet again with stories of a haunted tea set. He was known as a joker. I expect the first picture was a happy accident, then he kept the pranks coming.
*EveryTime, I have Ate PeaNuts the PreVious Day,*
*I Wake Up HoRRiBLe the Next Morning!!!!*
haha serious?!
@@saintessa yes! I kept a screenshot of the spaceship story he did, but unfortunately it is on a dead laptop so I can’t post it. On thinking back he may have said the tea set was cursed rather than haunted. It used to be possible to search his local newspaper archives and read old stories with his name.
@@CalisthenicsWork*
Right, I will research things myself.
Some say that in the 1960's he was a professional photobomber. All we know, is he's called The Stig!
Good one Syd 🤣🤣
Well done😂
@@verynearlyinteresting Tez ... completely off topic but, I'm wondering why my You Tube name has just been changed from Syd North to "@sydnorth5868". I notice that a similar thing seems to have happened to everybody else as well. As a legendary man of RUclips I am relying on you to discover the truth! I am not a number, I am a free man!
😂😂😂
Lmmfao bruh that's gold son 😂💯😂🤣👍👊✌️
As Mum was walking away her face was tilted down, so from the camera's angle only the hair on the very back of her head above the neckline would be visible, not the back of her head all the way to its top. She was looking for wildflowers to pick, not looking out at the moon.
Love the new channel! The Bronte sisters photo--100%! It's them!
Thank you so much for watching … for both videos! I’m really pleased you enjoyed them (and I agree with you about the Brontës 😉) Tez
Probably the most logical explanation I've seen yet.
You came to the same conclusion I did, but for entirely different reasons. I’m an amateur photographer myself and it’s a well known fact that photographers don’t always pay attention to what’s going on ahead of the camera, especially when you are focused on a specific subject. Usually when you go on vacation or take a day trip, you want to take pictures to preserve the memory. People who aren’t into “professional photography” usually just take one and be done. He snapped one picture, wife assumed he was done and began walking across the field, he snapped another, not realizing that she was in frame, then snapped a third. Three different pictures had been taken and it was the middle picture that contained the spaceman. I agree that it was his wife and he just wasn’t paying attention.
I have a picture that I took at the ghost town of Bodie and it looks like I was photographing a group of people sitting in a mine car. I hadn’t noticed the people in the shot, nor had I noticed they were lined up perfectly with the mine car. I had my attention elsewhere and I got a funny photo because of it.
The problem is that you assume that he did not notice him before or after the photo.
He may even have noticed it at the time, but after a week waiting for the developed photos, forgot the details of what happened - I mean, you try and remember the exact circumstances of a specific moment from a week ago? Most people with average memories can't.
Templeton had clearly spent quite some care setting up his daughter's pose with that lovely posy of flowers that they had clearly brought along with them for the purpose - they are not wild. He no doubt had hoped would take a beautiful photo portrait of her in her best dress on a sunny day in a country setting. It was to be in colour too which was not that usual in the early 1960's as well as being much more expensive than monochrome. Strange then that he seems to have been the only photographer ever who bothered to take only one photograph of his subject in a set pose after going to so much trouble to ensure that it would be perfect.
But it's not just a snap of his daughter its a well thought out composition. I would bet that its very likely that he took at least one more photo of his daughter in that pose and quite possibly he even took a number of them. He would have been unusually very confident of his own skill and equipment if he hadn't and of course as any parent knows young kids do move and blink and you often don't find that out until the photo is developed .
I wonder then what might have happened to all the other photographs on the reel of film that he was using on that day and if anyone has ever asked to see what was on them? There seems to have been at least one other photo that was less formal of his daughter with his wife. Perhaps no one was very interested what else was on the reel because they didn't contain a spaceman. The rest of the reel may have however have given some clue as to where the spaceman had come from. Of course I am thinking of a fleet of spaceships flying overhead.
@@kevingray3550 lol @ you for writing all of that.
Except that professional photographers never take just one--they take four or five just to be safe.
Also, note that Annie is likely looking down at the grass or flowers, strolling slowly, which is why her head is flattened and the moon (or a cloud - equally likely) can be seen above it more so than if she had been looking ahead at the horizon with her head tilted up.
Good point about the cloud. I thought it unlikely given the irregular shapes of other clouds but you do have a point. Tez 😊
Yes, definitely the wife and I also thought maybe she was looking down, but also maybe a head scarf, as many women wore in this period. Billowing in the breeze might have given it a dome shape? To definitely confirm it was the moon, we'd need to see the adjacent two photographs, to see if the moon was in them.
As for the photographer not seeing her, this is a common fault with amateur photography. How many lamposts have we seen coming out of people's heads? When taking a photograph, many people concentrate on the subject, the daughter in this case and neglect to scan the rest of the frame, hence notvseeing his wife photobombing the snap.
Love how you conclude having never met the man 🤣
" Look at dad" were Jims wifes words to Elizabeth - from BEHIND Jim .
Cos 1st pic has Elizabeth looking down & Mum to her left - mum went behind Jim simple as that - Uploader will no doubt make a video next week when the prize arrives from kodak . Started as a years supply of film , now its printers optical toys , state of the art cameras the works = which is why every You Tuber is claiming to have solved it . If its Jims wife 1 question is obvious
WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO HAVE KODAK LOOK AT THEM ? If its Mrs T = case closed - cos it aint her ,If Youd simply met the guy when he was alive youd know this !
Thank you, without adding that bit the OPs explanation for the photo lacks plausibility because he's not explained why the head is so small with the 'dome' removed, while with your addition it has some.
Personally I think it's as likely to be the photographer is just having a laugh and just hasn't got bored of the occasional attention yet (if he's still with us?), maybe a double exposure of some sort accidental or otherwise or something as simple and basic as a doll of some description or cut out magazine image poked up behind her head.
The visit from the 'men in black' is either just the photographer embellishing his story and never happened or a couple of jokers who'd heard about it yanking his chain.
Can't say I'm really bothered what it was or how it was done .. though I am marginally amused that anyone might believe it was real, or even that anyone might try to pretend that it was .. if anyone is interested I have these genuine photos of fairies from Cottingley around the turn of the century 😁
I can only imagine it must have been a real slow news day when the papers decided to carry this one back in the day.
@@philmartin5689 Wow you are right! If the other two photos were taken in the same time period, the moon would be visible and this theory confirmed. That bothers me though, as surely someone investigating this would have examined the other two photos and noticed the moon, and come to a similar conclusion? They obviously didn't!!?
From the very first time I saw this photo years ago... it always looked like a person dressed up in a space suit costume standing in the background. I never was convinced this could be an alien.
The bigger mystery to me about this photo is why was it ever taken seriously?
Or why there is a 14 minute video on it.
@@filonin2 Good question. This could be explained in 2 to 3 minutes.
This was proved to be his wife decades ago.
Some RUclipsrs really scrape the bottom of the barrel.
@fartpooboxohyeah8611 THIS
Here here!
To answer your question, the photo was *taken* seriously because Jim seriously thought it would make a great picture of his daughter. (jk)
The most logical explanation I have ever heard on this subject. I agree 100% on the viewfinder issue. My very first foray into photography was using a cheap 110 intsamatic camera that nearly always added or left out significant parts of a subject I was attempting to capture. It took a lot of experimenting to allow for that deficiency.
Logic is the beginning of wisdom. Not the end.
Problem is, he would have seen the moon with his eyes both before and whilst framing the shot. He would have remembered if his composition had been ruined by someone walking into shot.
With all due respect to everyone.
This guy in the video makes everyone focus on that bs moon theory he decided was there, at 8:40 they show a foto of the wife Annie next to the child and you can clearly see Annies arms, her width from biceps to triceps is very thin and she is close to the camera, now if she was far from the camera her arms would look even thinner, now at 7:10 screen shot that image and zoom in the person behind the child you can clearly see the back of that person and his elbow is pointed to the camera, look at those arms the width is thick from biceps to triceps its a much bigger arm than Annies thin arm at 8:40.
That is not Annie .
This guy in the video sounds like Neil deGrass Tyson, look up that video of him explaining how Earth is like an oblate spheroid and is less than nothing turns Earth into a Pear shape.
The Moon wasn't there. The Moon didn't rise until after 5 o'clock on that day and it rose in the East. Look at the girl's shadow, the camera is facing West.
*EveryTime, I have Ate PeaNuts the PreVious Day,*
*I Wake Up HoRRiBLe the Next Morning!!!!*
Makes sense ... but @ 1:08 wouldn't it be easy to confirm your theory if we take a look at the other two photos he took of Annie where the 'spaceman' didn't appear? We should see that same waxing moon without her, correct? Are they available? That, to me, seems like the key to end this photo mystery 😀
If they were at the same angle, but yes it would be very helpful to see those.
I was thinking the same thing.
@@toddfiore6004 Ditto!
He did composite photos. He never shows the other 2.
Also, direction camera was pointed at time of photo, lined up with position of moon during that time… ?
EXCELLENT job! The only thing I would add is that I would guess that Annie happened to be _looking down_ (perhaps at some wildflowers) when the shot was taken, which meant more of the moon beyond her could be seen, instead of her head.
Liked & subscribed, and looking forward to more interesting videos!
As a 7 or 8 year old in the 1970's, my first question when seeing this on tv ( some UFO programme or other) was why the spaceman's elbow was facing the wrong way.
It's well know that aliens have opposing elbows 😂
Good question. I have noticed this..
Did his camera creat a mirror image on his lense,
Why is it the "wrong way"? Which way does YOUR elbow face when viewed from behind?🤔
His back is facing us
@@sarahharrison8520 so then his helmet is on backwards?
Good job! Also worth noting; The bend of the elbow informs us the figure is facing away from the camera, and we wouldn't expect to see a visor on the back of a head.
Yep!! I forgot to mention that important point in the video didn't I? Thank you MsTyrie, Tez ;)
With a human body but not necessarily an alien one lol! but you're right,
also looks as though the person is wearing a HOODIE, you can see the hood on the shoulders, plus to me the are looking down and to the right slightly, I believe that may be a hat on top of the head and the back of the head has maybe a pony tail or just longer hair.
@@FRANKO-iu3dx except people didn't wear "hoodies" in the UK during 1964, no it's probably a head scarf as most women used to wear then. My mother certainly did.
It does look odd, doesn't it? But it would depend on the design of the helmet... A dark patch needn't be a visor.
Finding a RUclips presenter who does not jump on the usual conspiracies is refreshing. All very informative, I have subscribed. :) Stop the music. You don't need it.
Thank you so much for subscribing Bill, means a lot! I did say this on my other reply to you but I do appreciate your feedback in relation to the music. Tez 😊
A really awesome analysis of this case. I had always known this story as the "Cumberland spaceman". I think your theory is the best contender, as answers pretty much all the Qs with data backed, most probable answers. But just one question remains...
How did his wife also get in the shot of the security cameras at the nuclear facility in Australia??? ;-)
That’s a good question 🤣. Tez.
Good question - also if its Jims wife = why would you NEED kODAK to analyse it ?
cos it aint her !
@@doctorpsylus You think it's a spaceman??? Do you realise how stupid that is???
Early evidence of teleportation?.
I think we only have Templeton's word that this happened. He didn't publicise the source, other than a letter to the Daily Mail. The trail seems to end precisely there.
Great explanation and very plausible, I saw this image when I was around 14 years and never stopped thinking about it, the husband obviously lied when he said there wasn't anyone around but her daughter, and this contributed to the legend
Yeah, his wife was there the picture is there in this video. Well done to the uploader who obtained it. Dont buy the moon theory though, his wife is just wearing a headscarf.
If we checked the 2 other photos of the daughter, we could see if the moon was in the sky. If it wasn't, I would say it's also possible the mother was wearing a head scarf that caught the wind. On a sunny day in the 1960's head scarfs were pretty common ladies picnic attire.
Looking at the figure through the lens of it being the mother's back. I believe she is wearing a kerchief on her head and is looking slightly to the right which shows the side of her glasses. This story fascinated me when I read about about years ago. Your analysis makes sense, brilliant work.
Good observations!!!! I'll go back and have another look. Thanks for watching and commenting @chelebel. Tez ;)
my thoughts exactly
That's exactly what I thought, it was very common in those days to wear one.
No it doesn't: because he hasn't provided any almanac data PROVING that the moon was full that day: and could be seen from that position, at that place and time.
Anyway, d'you know what? I've found from experience that the moon generally looks TINY in most photographs;
smaller than it appears to the naked eye. I looked this up and the internet said it was because of some kind of atmospheric effect.
@@oneoflokis nothing to do with any atmospheric effects and everything to do with the focal length of the lens being used.
Jim took several photos of his daughter; have we seen the other ones to see if the moon is there on its own without mum standing in the way?
This was 1964, film was expensive as was processing. Nobody took 'several' pictures in the days of film cameras. There were only 24 shots on the roll, which were probably used over a longish period.
@@thefreemanarchives6220not strictly true many wealthy amateur photographers would regularly take 2 or 3 images, bracketing the exposure, one under exposed one at correct metering and one over, hence the 3 images, 35mm is available in 36 exposures also, some cameras being half frame types can potentially take 72 images. Hope this helps 😊😊
@bregosanto Very good question. Photographer said he took 3 pics of the daughter in a similar pose.. Considering the position of the sun controls the direction of photo, all other pics taken around this time would most likely contain the moon's presence in the background. I doubt these happened to be the last 3 pics on that roll, so others were likely taken that day as well.
@@thefreemanarchives6220 In the 60s and 70s, I remember, most people wanting to see/hold/show the pics as soon as possible after taking them, same as today. I remember the common practice of "using up the rest of a roll" to allow for safe removal of the roll without over exposing earlier pics. Maybe it was different in the UK.
@@thefreemanarchives6220 7 x 3 = 24
“A white suit, a helmet, a dark visor. Jim, they believed, had photographed…” The Stig
That was an excellent explanation of what caused this anomaly. It makes sense.
I understand that people want it to be something other worldly but it’s not.
I saw the interview with one of the two men that rigged the touchstone photo of the Loch Ness that is still used today as proof. He explained in detail how he and his friend setup the whole thing with a couple of toys and creative photography. People just ignored him.
The man who did the camera work for the famous Bigfoot film finally confessed. He promised his friend to wait until he died before going public. It was a man in a costume. The man’s wife backed up the friend’s confession. “Experts” still refer back to that film and go into great detail describing how the movements and appearance are not human but some unknown bipedal missing link.
People just seem to need to believe in these urban legends. No amount of logic will convince them. The “experts” have made a cottage industry out of feeding on the fantasies.
If you're referring to the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot, then no, neither of them confessed. One of them maintained until the day he died that it was real, and the other eventually said he was willing to accept that he might have been fooled, but that he wasn't part of it.
@@surfdigby It was several years ago when the surviving of the two was on Hard Copy and confessed. It was quite a while because I was still living in California at the time.
Wrong
@@pamelasimone5084 what can I Google to find something that confirms this? I've tried "bob gimlin confession hard copy" and there's no results.
The only thing remotely close is the comment he made on X-Creatures, which I mentioned above.
@@surfdigby I’ll check. I remembered the episode.
I also remember a segment from one of the History Channel’s series on Nessie.
A man confessed he and a couple of his friends faked the iconic Loch Ness Monster footage. They mounted a plastic dinosaur model on a remote control submarine toy. They sent the footage to a news show. They expected it to be exposed immediately but once it made news, they decided to keep quiet.
It's also possible that the woman had her head slightly inclined forward, glancing at the ground in front of her, which would explain why the head of the figure seems shorter than a head should be. Combined with being out of focus, it explains the illusion of a helmeted figure.
Very valid point.
I always figured being slightly out of focus, moving her head at the time, and light reflection (off shiny hair?) could all account for the head - especially in combination. Headscarf and/or an inclined head are also possibilities.
Indeed!
@@lurch789 You're very rude and inconsiderate.
She was clearly looking down at a spaceman that was passed out on grass. 😂
As for the content and presenter both are excellent, it's a compelling theory well thought out and presented in a way that guides the viewer through the process while still leaving them free to come to their own conclusion, I for one am just glad we can't prove the theory life is way more fun with a little mystery involved. Love your work mate keep it up you've more than earned a subscription and UP vote 👍
Oh thank you! That’s very kind of you. Tez😊
You can see the edge of her glasses to the right side of the head.
I like the explanation it’s his wife accidentally walking into the frame which is why he took a third shot … in case the first one was also spoiled.
When the guy in the processing shop suggested the “spaceman” explanation … he decided to go along with the idea … to the end of the road …
You can see a tiny white fragment of receding footwear heel showing below the daughter’s hair on the right hand side… a different intensity to the white blotches in the moor’s foliage. … suggesting a foot on terra firma.
Don’t like the ‘moon’ explanation because it’s the wrong colour, no lunar blotching, and it oddly loses it’s definition on the right side of her head with no cloud obscuring that area … also notice the top of her hair is slightly ‘lost’ … when her head doesn’t appear tilted downwards to that degree.
Looking carefully, I feel his wife could have been wearing a summery Jackie ‘O’ hat from the 1960’s… a pill box style in white… as seen in link below, if you scroll near bottom of page … her’s could have had a better defined white veil going around the whole thing protecting her from the sun.
vintagedancer.com/1960s/1960s-hats-styles-womens-hat-history/
You can see the curve of the lower rim of the hat on the right edge periphery.
This explains why her hair at the top is ‘suppressed’ from view … and your interesting ‘moon theory’ doesn’t quite fit … nice try👍 … but no cigar! 🤔
@@verynearlyinteresting The Spaceman's suit design is unique, we don't see spaceman suit like this today.
The moon wasn't visible from the Carlisle area in the early afternoon of 23 May 1964. The Chapelcross cooling towers are visible in the right of the photo so the camera is facing North West, across the Firth. The shadows show the time is near noon, I'm guessing about 1:30pm local time. You can look up where the moon was at that time. It was above Australia. Having said that - great video. I'm all for people analysing this stuff!
In our family album, there's a photo that my dad took of my mum while they were on holiday in the Med. My mother was always pointing out that my dad had only gone and included a large bare-breasted woman in the shot, hadn't he, standing some distance behind her. After many years of her pointing this out to all and sundry, I took a harder look at the photo: the bare-breasted woman was, in fact, a man.
Dont assume his gender you racist prick
Yeah, right, you were taking a hard look to just debunk the pic and for no other reason😂
You'd be surprised how often that kind of thing happens. I scanned a photo for a friend that had been printed in reverse. You could could see that all the text in the image was backwards. She had me return it to the wrong way as that's what she was used to looking at. But, things like that do happen fairly often if you're not looking closely at it.
Well your dad thought it was a woman! LOL
What is a woman?
LOL at the dude going to the police. "Hello? Police department? Yes, there was a man in a spaceman outfit who was in the background of a picture I took in a public place. I want him looked into. Why are you laughing?!"
The camera never lies... except in this case! It would be interesting to see the other two photos, especially if taken from the same angle at roughly the same time... there should be a moon in the picture. It's true that when concentrating on the foreground you often don't look closely enough at the background. It's possible that he wife walked into shot without him noticing.
One would think that if it was the moon, perfectly lined up with his wife's head as she strolled uphill behind their daughter, then that same moon would be visible, unobscured by the wife, in the other two photos.
Since the anomaly only showed up on the middle of three images taken closely together in time, I've always thought that it was something that happened when the film was being developed. A bubble or blob of developing chemicals, or a light leak into the canister of developing film. Pinhole cameras and photography darkroom work was part of my High School Art classes. Ordinary film cameras & film processing were part of my Yearbook staff activities. Weird things happened when you were on a tight budget and tried to develop too many photos with a single batch of chemicals, rather than using a fresh batch for each run of processing.
Another potential explanation for why most of her head is not visible is because she was probably looking down. I really wish it was an alien or a space man with some kind of experimental cloaking device, but I think it's probably just the photographers wife.
I'm still convinced it's his wife wearing a white pill box hat (60's style) and veil ... who later pulled on a tightish white cardigan and a headscarfe around her neck when the wind picked up ... some sort of matching white footwear.
We can discount the Moon and cloud explanations as they are nowhere to be seen in shots 1+3.
Hope this helps.
One more thing about the apparent small size of the head. The camera is looking at an upwards angle, and if she was looking down at something, the size would appear small.
I think this pretty much clears up the whole thing. Certainly more likely than a spaceman appearing long enough for a picture, then disappearing again.
Clearly isn’t looking upwards. You’re shit with angles if u think that’s pointed upwards.
If it was the kids would be at a different angle too….
Wtf man? Basic stuff.
I came here to say that. If she was looking down, we'd only see the lower half of her head, making it appear strangely small.
I had the same thought, given they were flower picking she is most likely to be looking down.
Or if she was simply moving her head during the exposure...
I definitely think she's looking at the ground in that photo.
I do remember reading about this in Fortean Times a while ago now (possibly around the same time as The Hallam University professor's explanation in 2012), where they did a deep analysis and explanation of the photos. They came to the same conclusion of the girl's mum being in the photo, but (I think as my memory is sketchy) wearing a headscarf instead of it being the moon. Also, you can see what looks like the frame of her glasses/sunglasses on the right side as you look at her head, which I don't think I'd ever seen or realised before until now.
However, it doesn't explain Jim Templeman's experience of the MIB (if ever that did happen) or what was seen at Woomera (no photos showing it, just the word of the 2 workers at the missile range saying they'd seen the same 'being'). Maybe though the MIB story came about because of what was seen at Woomera and it being a possible link that interested them, but then dropped it whe they realised it wasn't linked? It also doesn't explain why his wife (as far as we know) never mentioned anything about walking in to the photo and acknowledging that in fact it is her in the photo. Seems like there are still more questions to be answered than we realise.
Next stop: The Ilkley Moor 'alien' photo perhaps? 🙂
Have you seen the enhanced version of that ? Looks very convincing.
I think the white is just a cloud
Did he just go through this theory, to show how crazy other theories are? Very well done and surprisingly entertaining and a great storyteller as well.
Thank you very much, that's very kind of you. Tez.
@@verynearlyinterestingBut does the moon show up in any of the other photos he took that day?
@@truthbebold4009 Apparently not. I was surprised when watching the video to see he did not show evidence of where the moon should be on that day, its a distraction anyway and I believe the white spot can be explained by sun glare on her head.
Very well done 👏 I've known about this for a long time and it popped up as a suggestion for me. Surprising this hasn't been done professionally before now.
That’s very very kind of you, thank you so much. Tez
my father always said it was the wife. he (and i) were interested in the paranormal. but he was adamant that the wife had strayed into the photo. he would have loved this channel.
What a lovely thing to say. Thank you. Tez
It's his wife... u can clearly see she had some kinda collar on that dress and it looks almost like a scarf from behind... it's his wife, over exposed in the bright sunshine.
Some people just want to believe in magic even when the world is quite ordinary
The final "shot" featuring a similar figure (facing toward the subject and camera) sealed it for me. It is a perfect illustration of what a human left elbow actually looks like when facing front, and not when facing in the other direction. It's just a little thing that has been irritating me every time I see this story told from the point of view of a person who believes they see a spaceman. Thank you! Take my like and sub.
Thank you very much, Tez.
Interesting video and theory. If it was his wife in the background how come she didn't spot herself in the photo and admit it was her rather than mislead UFO researchers and those interested in the paranormal? Has the intended subject of the photo ( the little girl) ever been interviewed as a grown woman? It would be fascinating to hear her take on what happened that day.🤔
For publicity. Husband probably told her to go along with it
It’s possible they may not recognize themselves. If her has and was taking photos of their daughter she probably walked into the shot accidentally. While I think he’s nailed the explanation you can see how someone could mistake that as a spaceman…in the absence of any other explanation.
The woman wouldn't have been seen through the view finder. She probably didn't know she was in frame. Oddly enbough, for "new" evidence, I'd seen this photo explained years ago.
I always thought it was the wife in the background, with wind billowing her dress. It looks ike a fairly breezy day. The moon theory is a new one on me, but very plausible. I also think, that once they realised people were hooked on the "spaceman" mystery, they continued the story to keep the mystery going and have a wee chuckle to themselves over the years. Thanks for retelling the story, always love a twist to a mystery 😊
Adding, She's looking down at her feet, maybe observing the grass, surveying whatever she's looking at, which makes her head look smaller. Her head is looking downwards. He's so focused (No Pun Intended) on getting the shot, he's likely fiddling with the Camera, and hadn't noticed his wife got up to walk where she gets in the frame. Then he's still managing his Camera, unaware where she is, until he's done with it. By that time, Husband's mind is off the Camera and notices his wife has changed location, possibly away from where the shot was done. Whatever adjustments he was Doing on the Camera, to him it felt like 5 seconds, in reality it was 35 seconds?? (guessing) edited in: Remember, he had a week to wait for the pictures to return from developing. He then relies on what transpired that day. His Recall puts his wife behind him, and when he's done with the photoshoot, Annie is already somewhere else. I also notice it looked like a slightly windy day, judging how her hair is misplaced. This wind can mask Annie's foot steps near him, he didn't hear her and she didn't want to disturb his concentration. Those old cameras, you really needed to be steady and still as possible for a clear picture.
Yes. I even thought it was the moon before the explanation part of the video came up. And the elbow told me it was the back of someone, not the front. Excellent work! Subbed! Cheers from 🇨🇦! 😊
Thanks so much@@ditzygypsy . Tez 😊
I have no idea why this photograph caused so much of a sensation. It was clearly someone standing with their back to the camera. When you see the other photographs of that day you can see it was another family member.
Yes, you can tell it is just that other person.
I agree it shouldn't have taken THIS long, but I will say it's easier to have it broken down digitally on modern computers than just a still photograph with no supporting images released side by side with it.
Bullshit. The person would have to be 10 feet tall.
@@gordongarrett6229 No. He explains that anomaly at 8:01 - 8:36.
It is
Your right it is his wife. But the moon stuff is too complicated. It's much simpler than that. She is wearing a light coloured headscarf (very common in the day)and her head is turned slightly to right, so we catch a pair sunglasses she's wearing.
Reminds me of the old fashioned handkerchief on the head like an old man at the beach.
You can see how it bunches up at the back before flowing across her shoulders
So glad someone brought this back up. Thanks for this photo.
Well, I'm convinced. I never did think this was anything other than something quite ordinary presenting itself as extra-ordinary due to misinterpretation.
I think you've nailed it here.
Great video.
Well thank you very much. I really appreciate you watching and commenting. Tez :)
Doesn't explain anything. Was based on the theory of a non-expert attempting to explain AWAY...
@@oneoflokis doesn't always require an expert to explain something.
I'm not convinced this is anything out of the ordinary.
Yes, we all want to believe in the marvellous and wonderful, but just cos that's more fun and interesting, it doesn't make it the truth.
I have the same view. I also think that many people including the photographer have gone to great lengths to present the alien space,an theory for financial gain. I don’t believe the photographers men in black story and how it influenced space programs. This is nothing more than lies and embellishment to give the story more credibility. Has anyone spoken to the little girl, who is probably about 70 years old now?
This is the perfect example of Occam’s Razor, as well as a great example of how the real world can be more interesting than fiction :)
I agree. I think some people don't want to go with the obvious because they deem it boring. I'm with you though, the real world is far more interesting. Tez :)
@@verynearlyinteresting and some don't want to go with the obvious because they want to feel special. It's fundamentally an elitist attitude, they think they know better than anyone else who accepts the blatantly obvious.
@@philmartin5689 Never thought of it like that Phil!! You may well be right! Tez.
@@verynearlyinteresting yes it's quite common and probably something we've all engaged with at some time or other. When we were kids it was the bands we followed but then it's just frivolous however with others it gets more serious, especially when you get into the bounds of conspiracy thinking. Flat earthers really do think they are superior to the rest of us duped into thinking globally and it's visible in a whole range of other beliefs.
What? This explanation is the very opposite of Occam's razor even if it is correct
Hello! The Kodak guy who developed the film was the mastermind of the spaceman!
The moon should be visible in the two pics without the person in it.
Do we know if it is ?
Well done. I believe it’s the wife with a hat on.
A refreshing change. Someone who actually wants to explain something out of the ordinary without claiming aliens.
Thanks Mick! Tez
That’s what the aliens want you to think! You fell for it man! 😄
It's always aliens, come on man! lol
*EveryTime, I have Ate PeaNuts the PreVious Day,*
*I Wake Up HoRRiBLe the Next Morning!!!*
I found the breakdown of the photo composition bang on and I have seen this photo many times in the past when I was younger in the newspaper and recently in UFO documentaries and I have always considered the mother back explanation as the arms are bent forward at the elbow.
Have you considered looking into the 1980 Rendlesham forest UFO as many de bunkers seem to blame the distant lighthouse as being the light in the trees but they were reporting orange / red light flashing, I think lighthouse lights are white, also others state the lighthouse shone out to sea and had a brick wall screening the light going in land ........just a thought
Hi Mart, thanks for your lovely comment. I’ve already covered the Rendlesham UFO would you believe, if you scroll back a few on the channel you’ll see it. Tez
He took 3 photo's, with this being the middle one, she could easily have time to get in front of the girl during the time he took the first photo, then wound the film on and took the second, and time again to get out of shot by the time he took the third. It would be interesting to see the 1st and 3rd one to see if there was any part of her in them.
The first and 3rd photos should show the moon in the sky as well. further proving this theory.
I was intrigued and almost sorry you debunked this mystery, but I believe you did and you've got yourself a sub.
Well thank you very much 😊 that’s most appreciated. Tez
The Moon wasn't there. The Moon didn't rise until after 5 o'clock on that day and it rose in the East. Look at the girl's shadow, the camera is facing West and it's midday..
I remember when I saw this photo in a compilation of creepy and paranormal photos for the first time I found it quite scary, but probably more because of the "this is a creepy unknown ghost" explanation along with scary music. Some years later I saw it again and already thought: "That must be a person in a white dress who was overexposed by the sunlight that got in the background without him noticing."
I have followed this story since the early 1970's when I saw the picture in a school library book on UFO"s. It always intrigued me. Something that never occurred to me until now. Did anyone ask the wife/mother if she was in the camera frame ? BTW great video and channel. I have subscribed.
Probably, although they probably didn't expect for the image to get this famous. At a certain point, I doubt they could own up to it, even if they wanted to without looking like con artists.
Wait perhaps Annie had her head pointed down at the moment of exposure so that the piece of the moon was visible (and the head would look unnaturally small) in the photograph? I like your explanation. I like it a lot. 🎉
Hello!!! How nice to hear from you again! And yes I agree, many people have said she is looking down, great observation. Tez
This video deserves millions of views! amazing job 👏
Oh thank you! Tez
It's the first time I've seen this image but what struck me as odd was that we are seeing the back of a figure because of the orientation of the arms and elbows. At the same time we are led to believe we are seeing a visor of some sort.
This would mean the head is turned 180° which is not possible.
Unless humanoid aliens walk around with their heads on back to front that is.
As humans, we inherently want to find an explanation for things that we can't understand by fitting them into a narrative that we can understand.... sometimes forcefully.
Yes it's called cognitive bias.
Thats what this video is doing
I find that it's a good idea to maintain an element of flexibility by always reserving some degree of uncertainty, even if it's a miniscule amount.
This mean it allows a certain amount of speculation and makes the consideration of new evidence much easier as it is less threatening to one's own identity, which can be an egotistical restriction if one is 100% certain.
@@DAVIDE-bk8by Don't you get the irony of your own statement?! You want to believe so much that you'd go for "aliens" rather than someone's wife being in the background ^-^
You should look into Richard C. Doty, the guy was CIA, paid to spread UFO BS.
UFOs literally are a CIA psyop... As disappointing as it is...
You should also look into Paul Bennewitz. The army literally drove him insane by making him believe that the signals he intercepted were from alien origin... They even sent poorly encrypted messages so he could decipher them ^-^ (when I say "literally insane", I mean it. The guy ended up in an asylum)
So, most of the UFO stories of the previous century were fake CIA BS... Where do people get their UFO info these days?... Oh, that's right... The freaking Pentagon ahahahahaha
You guys are falling for a literal psyop. UFO are a CIA invention, literally.
Trust me, I wish it wasn't the case but it is. It is well documented but what's the motto of the "UFO community" again? "I want to believe"... But you want to believe... So, no amount of proof will convince you. But at least, someone tried to warn you... UFOs are a CIA psyop.
With all due respect to everyone.
This guy in the video makes everyone focus on that bs moon theory he decided was there, at 8:40 they show a foto of the wife Annie next to the child and you can clearly see Annies arms, her width from biceps to triceps is very thin and she is close to the camera, now if she was far from the camera her arms would look even thinner, now at 7:10 screen shot that image and zoom in the person behind the child you can clearly see the back of that person and his elbow is pointed to the camera, look at those arms the width is thick from biceps to triceps its a much bigger arm than Annies thin arm at 8:40.
That is not Annie .
This guy in the video sounds like Neil deGrass Tyson, look up that video of him explaining how Earth is like an oblate spheroid and is less than nothing turns Earth into a Pear shape.
You make a good argument. I think you got it. Though I don't buy he didn't see her because of the viewfinder. She's literally poking out from behind the photo's subject. That said he probably saw her, but he didn't notice her. As someone who has an interest in photography this has happened to me as well. You don't realize people or objects are in the frame because you're too focused on the subject itself.
I LOVE ❤ your rational and analytical approach! Level-headed analysis is much more fascinating and satisfying than all those wackadoo conspiracy theories and UFO fantasies. The best known photograph story was of course the Cottingley Fairies which convinced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that fairies were real, even though it was patently obvious the fairies had been drawn on paper and artistically arranged for the shot.
Thanks Harriet. You know, I'm sorely tempted to do a video about that!!! Tez :)
This is a better explanation than a spaceman that nobody saw at the time. After the shot they would have still been there and someone would have seen them.
That bit is definitely still a mystery ... Tez.
@@verynearlyinterestingthose are some big arms tho
Oh no, definitely a spaceman, I mean we have no proof, and there's absolutely NO evidence, but yeah, lets all pretend it was a spaceman with backwards arms...
Brilliant! I thought of the moon also, and this explanation cleared up for me all the other little details. I'm convinced.
Thank you … not many agree with me on the moon theory 😆. I’m glad you enjoyed it though. Tez
I tried to teach a group of 12 year olds about this story. I started off by saying clearly that the mom walked in front of the camera, you can see what she wore that day, and the sleeves. Didn't matter what I said, they were already debating how a spaceman could have gotten there, without having ever heard of this story before. Kill me already.
That's hilarious James. Brave man trying to teach this to 12 year olds ... they'll still be sure it's a spaceman in 50 years I reckon. It's all good fun though. Tez :)
You're a teacher and you say "gotten"? Shame on you.
@@raybeer5213 North American past participle of get. It’s in the USA dictionary.
@@raybeer5213 It's quite acceptable North American usage. It used to be commonplace in England several hundred years ago.
Yes. Well both you and the "social scientist" are clearly wishful thinkers: as the "figure" clearly has a "costume" with FULL-LENGTH SLEEVES; PLUS a helmet. Plus NOTHING else in the photo is over-exposed: the girl is perfectly exposed, as her father had training in photography. And the moon thing is a red herring. You would need to compare the date and the time of the photograph to a meteorological chart of the time, to see if it was even possible that a "gibbous" moon would be viewable in the sky at that date, time and place. Which sites like this don't bother. They just advance "theories". B*locks. 👎
It's unlikely to be the moon. According to Stellarium, on May 23, 1964, the Moon first appear over the E/SE horizon around 6pm and would not be at the required elevation until after 9pm (dusk). As one, earlier comment, suggested it is most likely a cloud. Other than that I agree it's definitely the back of mum. This looks like an interesting new channel and I will be subscribing.
Thank you very much Richard. I really appreciate that, Tez 😊
That was amazing display of analytical thinking. I do believe you have solved the photo. Thanks for sharing. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya
That’s very kind of you, thanks Keith. Tez
I agree, mostly, but the bit about the moon seems a bit of a stretch. It might be worth using an astronomical program such as stellarium to precisely determine the position of the moon in the sky at the time the picture was taken.
As the mysterious figure was so over exposed, might the white dome on the head simply be the sun reflecting off the top of her hair? Compare the way the sun is reflecting off the daughter's hair in the foreground and then imagine that wildly overexposed
Yes that’s a good point Tim, that’s a possibility. I appreciate you watching and commenting, thank you so much 😊. Tez ;)
HOW can one subject in a photograph be correctly exposed, and the other be grossly over-exposed? Unless one is in shade and the other in bright sunlight, this cannot be the case! 😏
I have checked with stellarium and the moon rose at 18:00 in the UK
Very good! You are the first examiner to show any of the other photos taken that day. It would also be good to see the other two photos that bracketed this one if it was "the middle shot" as he described. If the moon shows in those, case closed. But nooooo.... that might challenge 60 years of magical thinking! We can't do that, right? Ha ha. And why does her head look too small? She was probably looking down for a second to get her footing on the hill.
Very good point Karl. And thank you for your comments, really appreciated. Tez.
^^^ This ^^^. Other photos on the roll provide valuable context, so we need to see those as well to get a fuller picture.
@@bradburymedia As far as I know it was reported that three photos were taken. Two of them are in the video … I haven’t seen the third one. Tez
I agree that this is the photographer's wife. But I also think it was a prank from the beginning and she wore something white on her head. The Moon hypothesis does not make any sense to me because the Moon would be *behind* the standing figure, not in front of her. Also where is the Moon on the other pictures? Do we know what time they were taken to calculate the zenith angle of the Moon at that time?
Totally agree, also she could have been wearing a head scarf which was popular in those days, especially if it was sunny.
Good point Rod. Tez
I remember seeing this photo years ago, it was obvious to me then and its still obvious. It's not faked. It's not a spaceman. It's the back of a woman wearing a headscarf. Probably one of the two old women the man who took the photo admitted to seeing. Case closed.
A final point is that the back of Annie's head may have only covered part of the moon behind it was that she was looking downward at the grass
Yep! After years of seeing this picture, I think you finally solved it. Well done sir, well done.
Aww thanks James. Tez
I remember seeing that image when I was about 5 and it scared the shit out of me 😮 I'd forgotten about until now lol...but you've definitely cracked it as far as I'm concerned! Great video
Thanks Mick!! Much appreciated, Tez :)
Same thing happened to me! I had nightmares about it lol
I love stuff like this. Well put together, genuinely interesting and fun. Good old RUclips.
... genuinely...does anyone watch 'normal' TV anymore??
Yes. That is also what I had thought of the composition. Thanks for the video demonstrating the hypothesis with no beings from outer space.
You are most welcome @MrBrianms. I really appreciate you watching and commenting, Tez :)
I don’t know much about this photo. But in 1978 while driving from Liverpool to aberdeen in the same general area. My dad spotted a cone shape in the sky which was green moving across the horizon . I was only young but I remember it clearly enough. My dad was an ex w02 in the army who took things seriously. I remember him saying “what the hell is that”?
Long time ago that. A strange phenomenon.
The coincidence of the timing of the shot, the darling daughter seated in front of the moon, the walking mother behind her & before the moon. What are the odds ? Not to mention, the other shots, where is the moon in them?
Looks to me like a quick plan came to fruition. Great photography.
This is a Awesome Channel. Have a good day !
You are so kind, thank you! Tez
You've solved it! This is the only explanation that actually makes sense.
Thanks Karen. Tez.
I’m fairly satisfied that this is indeed the mum, I don’t think she’s 10 feet tall or that the lighting defies physics, it’s just her standing in the sun behind her daughter, with the wind blowing her hair forward & I think there were just so many people desperate to preserve the _possibility_ that this might still be some strange, alien spaceman or something equally paranormal, that’ll forever be looking for oddities, regardless of how straightforward this is. As someone myself, who does believe in some aspects of the paranormal, as a kid I wanted this to be something ‘other’ but as I got older & saw the image pop up again & again, the more pragmatic side of my mind keeps seeing someone with their back to the camera & when that other photo appeared of the mum on the grass it was pretty obvious this was her in the other photo & my thinking was rather than her walking _into_ the shot, it actually looks more like she was initially crouching & probably stood up suddenly into shot, still facing away from the camera. It’s an instant in time, a photo capturing an odd image in a fraction of a second that is being recalled with normal, human inaccuracy. Not a spaceman, just a brightly, sunlit from behind, spacemum.
With a tiny head?! Do me a favour
@@annother3350 Yes,
With a ‘tiny head’
@@larrytalbot3824 Well that doesnt work at all then!!!!!!!
@@annother3350 It does.
@@larrytalbot3824 Nobody has a pin-head like that!!!!! Get real
I like your explanation. I think you found the answer. When she was bending down to pick up flowers behind the head of her child, she was invisible by him. When she stood up, with her body and head a bit bent to look at other flowers, the photo was taken. Notice the little girl has a bouquet of flowers in her hand.
It would be interesting to know how much time elapsed between each photo being taken and hence, why the mother was in one shot and not the other two. Also, is it possible to know if the photographer, the girl, the mother and the moon could have been aligned at that point in time.
Probably enough time for her to wander into frame for one shot and then out of it the next. Keep in mind that this was taken in the late '60s by an amateur photographer. Cameras were manual at that time and while it could have been taken more quickly, if he was repositioning and refocusing and interacting with the daughter, that would be more than enough time for the wife to wander around for reasons that are likely lost to history.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade They should ask Mrs Templeton if she remembers wandering in that area while her daughter had her pics taken. I remmber I think it was on Strange But True there was a facility nearby where people were wearing spaceman like costumes and they thought it was someone from there who had wondered into shot but think it was probably Mrs Templeton wo wandered into shot.
I have a very open mind on the ET hypothesis. I have looked at acres of reports on the subject but can I just say that I cannot imagine that if a " real alien " turned up in the middle of this photo shoot, he/she would not be wearing what looks like a costume from Thunderbirds. On the face of it, it does resemble a " NASA type " space suit from the mid sixties, but then again, if ET is supposedly so far advanced from us, he's going to have something a bit more hi-tech than what is shown here. It kinda reminds me of the early " Flash Gordon " TV programs where some of the " aliens " wore Roman Centurian's helmets complete with crest ???? They wouldn't have looked out of place in Ben Hur !
It seems the Moon rose above the horizon that day around six in the evening. You can check with astronomy apps, but I think it's more likely we're looking at a random cloud; One that was much closer than the others in shot. It would have been getting on past kiddo's bedtime, before the Moon would have been high enough in the sky to become mum's hat, but clouds you can find any old place, in any old shape.
I love the zeal you give in your investigation. There are plenty of likelier possibilities than in popular belief and it's refreshing to hear them thoroughly discussed.
It doesn't explain the figures at the launch site, but this is brilliant. The reason Annie does not appear in the other two photographs of Elizabeth is that they were picking flowers. She bent down, stood up for this crucial photograph, and then bent back down.
Sorry to be out of the loop but what figures at what launch site?
@@Psichotica7 photographer Jim Templeton said that a Blue Streak missile launch at the Woomera Test Range in South Australia was aborted because the figures of two large men were seen on the firing range. He claimed that technicians later saw his photograph in an Australian newspaper and found the figures to be exactly the same. I don't know if these technicians were ever identified and asked. I think this and the men in black story were concocted by Templeton for attention.
What two figures. Pix or it didn't happen.
@@Psichotica7its fucking 3 minutes into this very video homeboy talks about it...god damn
@corneliashields9202 exactly. We only have his word for that story, but in any case the whole point of the "spaceman" story is that the figure doesn't look distinctive, it looks like an astronaut, so the Australia story is simply that people dressed as astronauts were seen, which has no obvious connection to this story, other than the person telling it.
I've always said it looks like a person walking away from camera. Your Moon theory really does fit the bill.
Ah thanks @choochoochooseyou !! (Love the name!). Tez :)
Annie’s head is tilted forward…
This is a vampire spaceman....he casts no shadow
It's the mother looking the other way. Debunked many years ago.
But i want to belive
@@theguy-mydudeI've seen the real thing so You should believe.
A bird (seagull?) is trying to chase the girl away. The birds head is blurry due to rapid movement (helmet) and the wings are close to the body, looking like a spacemans arm. I agree a bird normally doesn't looks like this, but a bird CAN look like this.
I've seen this image everywhere in various media over the decades. Like most folks, I thought: "Well, it HAS to be an alien! What else could it be?!"
Now, 59 years later, after some thorough analysis and first-rate detective work on your part, I suddenly have the Bonzos playing in my head:
"I'm the Solway Spaceman, baby; here comes the twist---I don't exist."
It looks like you might be getting free film development for the whole year 😊 But to be 100% sure we would need to know if the Moon was visible on the two additional pictures right? If the composition and location is similar to the one with the spaceman, the Moon should be present on the two normal photos as well - right?
An interesting and well executed analysis and most likely correct. A couple of points though. The RAF base was not RAF at that time, the area is over 30miles away and was only ever used to test the rocket engines. Also although spelled Burgh it is always pronounced Bruff by locals like myself.
I love listening to non Australians attempting to pronounce Aussie place names, always cracks me up when they inevitably cock it up, and Woomera is not even a really hard example, even the spellchecker on RUclips doesn't like it and has underlined it as a misspelling, imagine if it encountered something a little trickier like Umberumberka for instance and it would have a melt down if it saw Mamungkukumpurangkuntjunya, cop that !
🤣I can’t even read those place names let alone pronounce them 🤣. Loved you comment, Tez
Pronounce this ; Bicester.............
It was the girl's mother; the photographer's wife. Other photos from the same day show her wearing the same clothing, and there has never been a mystery at all. However, the father seldom if ever displayed the other photos from the same day, and so deliberately encouraged the 'mystery' to continue. He was something of a 'joker' if not an outright hoaxer, though frankly one does wonder how anyone over the age of ten could ever have taken the 'Solway Spaceman' seriously at all.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that isn't a dummy, lol.
Came here to make sure someone else had made this comment. I think the reality is more interesting than the fiction - the fact that the illusion of a “spaceman” is so much easier for some people to believe says a lot about the human mind.
Then shes the first person in the history of physics not to cast a shadow on the grass during a nice sunny day.
@@soniaellis163 try looking at the original picture. The sun is behind the camera, making the girl's shadow behind her, which means her Mother's couldn't possibly be seen, as it's behind everything in the picture, and the girl's Mother is standing on top of the hill, her shadow would be hidden anyway. And of course you can just do 5 minutes of research and see the other photos taken that day. But you won't. You're afraid to be wrong. Don't be a puppet, be a thinker.
@@soniaellis163given where the child’s shadow is cast it’s pretty obvious that the shadow cast by the figure is going to be obscured by the child in the foreground.
Well done mate!
I can totally see it. In fact, I can't UNSEE her mum behind her.
There's other details too that give it away, like her head shawl that's slung back over between her shoulder blades. If hoodies had been invented back then, I'd have said she was wearing one and that was just the hood.
Thanks Alex :)
I found this very nearly interesting. I was always sceptical about this picture but this deconstruction provides a logical and reasoned breakdown to what we would call today a photobomb. One extremely important consideration is that of viewfinder coverage. Also, given that a second photo exists from the same session where the mother has been caught just inside the frame demonstrates either the poor coverage or the photographers lack of awareness before firing the shutter. Now then... Onto the Phoenix Lights... 😊
Thank you very much for your comment, very good point about the viewfinder issue! (And I’m glad you found it very nearly interesting!) I’ve had a few suggestions now regarding future videos … and Phoenix Lights has just been added to the list 😉. Thank you, Tez.
Just one problem: If the husband debunked the claim that the figure was his wife because she was standing behind him before and during his taking of the photograph, surely both he and the daughter would have noticed that the wife had moved her position to BEHIND the little girl when he lowered the camera AFTER taking the photograph. "What are you doing over there, darling? I thought you were behind me."
Yes that’s the biggest mystery of all. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that such a small and insignificant detail (at the time) wouldn’t be remembered … don’t forget you had to wait a week to get your photos back in those days. Tez
She'd probably moved at the point he lowered the camera, remember that he took another shot after than one. If this was an SLR then all the settings were manual and that would take some time to set, you couldn't see the result so if you could afford the film you'd generally take 3 shots with slightly different settings to make sure you got a good one.
@@verynearlyinteresting But you would see that she had moved when you had taken the picture and put the camera down. Which is what the OP meant...
@@olliebeak131 That’s a good point Ollie
Brilliantly explained. Well done and researched ! A great presentation too. Cheers!
I always thought it was the mom it instead of the moon being over her head, I thought it was a weird trick of light on her head. I have a photo that was taken during a sunny day and somehow it looks like I have white in my hair even though my hair is black
It was his wife from the rear
Excellent, one of the best videos the youtube algorithm has pushed my way - bravo! Enjoyed that.
Very intriguing and plausible as long as the photographer was incorrect about where his wife was at the time. There's also the question of the similar beings being spotted at the rocket launch shortly thereafter. A definite mystery.
Totally logical and likely explanation. Unfortunately a lot of people still believe aliens make crop circles, even after two blokes blew the whole thing apart and showed how they did it, so convincing the same people that photo wasn't aliens is like p****ing against the wind 😂
If you actually look into the two UK guys and the crop circles they actually made they were very unimpressive. They couldnt even keep a line straight at night with his little loop on his hat. Theirs also exhibited none of the unusual properties that make some crop circles interesting. Like the circles where plants even years later plants in that same area dont grow normally.
Yeah, I think now its students pranking people and using some fairly straightforward geometry and tools making up the original design on the 'ol laptop sizing it up and stuff. Must be a few 'teams' trying to outdo each other. As for plants not growing normally, some weedkillers or the like will do the trick.
Its funny the credibility of some of these stories as being paranormal waxes and wanes with time I find, I'm now convinced that this photo is of his wife but I saw a tv show the other day that explained that in many crop circles found in Wiltshire the storks of the crops (usually wheat) were not damaged in other words it therefore could not be done by two men trampling the crops with a piece of wood. Also some crop circles are simply too detailed, extensive and complicated to simply be done by two or more pranksters and often the circles appear in relatively short periods of time so whilst some small crop circles may have been done by pranksters others it seems were not.
This is the best explanation of the photo i have heard. Plausible and very well presented.
Wow, thank you!
😮 That is so obvious now! I can’t believe nobody saw this before. I always thought the ‘spaceman’ looked too much like a doll being held up behind her. Brilliantly explained, love the channel, subscribed 👏🏻