• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Cumberland Spaceman

Paul_Exeter said:
True, but she has moved position relative to the cooling towers which are now on the right but on the left in the picture of her with mum .

I have always felt that mum looks small in that photo and not much bigger than her young daughter but might just be the angles. Has anyone got a similar-ish image of a mum and daughter crouching like this?
Click to expand...
Yes, but if it's a level horizon it wouldn't make much difference - if any?
 
I cant make my mind up if he was a crap photographer, as in everything leaning, lumps
cut off and not knowing what was in frame, or good enough to screw with the negatives
well enough to fool Kodak or who ever.

crap and screw are tech terms that non photographer's would not understand.
:dunno:
 
RaM said:
I cant make my mind up if he was a crap photographer, as in everything leaning, lumps
cut off and not knowing what was in frame, or good enough to screw with the negatives
well enough to fool Kodak or who ever.

crap and screw are tech terms that non photographer's would not understand.
:dunno:
Click to expand...
Or, crop & skew perhaps?
I think he must have been experimenting with his camera, and like us all made some fundamental errors?
 
RaM said:
I cant make my mind up if he was a crap photographer, as in everything leaning, lumps
cut off and not knowing what was in frame, or good enough to screw with the negatives
well enough to fool Kodak or who ever.

crap and screw are tech terms that non photographer's would not understand.
:dunno:
Click to expand...
He didn't need to screw with the negatives to fool Kodak. Kodak will have been looking for evidence of manipulation. There was no manipulation to find as it is just an out of focus, over exposed and slightly tilted photo of his wife. I bet every husband with a camera at that time had a bunch of those!
 
But the mum in that photo looks no bigger than the little girl next to her, if it is an adult they should have a significantly larger body and legs. So what if it is another little girl? A relative or even total stranger who had made a new friend?

Surely it can't just be me, that blue dress female just looks like a small girl
 
Paul_Exeter said:
But the mum in that photo looks no bigger than the little girl next to her, if it is an adult they should have a significantly larger body and legs. So what if it is another little girl? A relative or even total stranger who had made a new friend?

Surely it can't just be me, that blue dress female just looks like a small girl
Click to expand...
Right, can now see the blue dress female has a part of her outstretched arm in shadow, making it appear thinner and more childlike
 
The photographer also reported some surrounding weirdness like a visit from the men in black, does all this unravel now the case is essentially solved?
 
Robbrent said:
The photographer also reported some surrounding weirdness like a visit from the men in black, does all this unravel now the case is essentially solved?
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Jim Templeton dismissed them as two men pulling his leg.
Take away the crap photography and there really isn't anything mysterious left in this story.
 
Frideswide said:
They aren't next to each other - so it's perspective.

It can be really hard to resolve a picture we've looked at "wrong" for a long time.
Click to expand...
Yep. I looked at a photo on the sports pages the other day, and thought it was a face - what I saw was actually the black spaces surrounding and between the body of someone holding up a trophy. :D
 
Steven said:
Yep. I looked at a photo on the sports pages the other day, and thought it was a face - what I saw was actually the black spaces surrounding and between the body of someone holding up a trophy. :D
Click to expand...
I STILL have problems with some of the photos over on our 'Pictures you need to see to understand' topic. Even when someone has told me what I'm looking at, my brain seems to get 'stuck' seeing the first image it registered.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Jim Templeton dismissed them as two men pulling his leg.
Take away the crap photography and there really isn't anything mysterious left in this story.
Click to expand...
Now we are aware of the deception journalists of the past would stretch to for a story, it may have been two such hacks trying to trick a confession out of him or simply to get his story for free
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but it had been suggested identical figures to the "spaceman" had been seen at Woomera Rocket Range around the same time, but it's since been revealed that although a rocket launch had been cancelled, there were no figures resembling the Cumberland Spaceman at Woomera
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top