what if templeton's wife just lied to him because she was embarrassed of what she had done?
Anyone "lying" seems like a bit of an extreme conclusion to me; although of course, it cannot be eliminated.
Jayceedove said:
She was behind the camera at all times looking after her other daughter whilst watching her husband take this shot. I asked her specifically many years ago.
As others have pointed out, she - or at least someone in a blue sleeveless dress - gets in shot at least once.
These days it's a simple job to take the picture into PhotoShop or Gimp and by simply playing with the brightness, contrast and colour saturation, establish that what you have there in the background is a woman in a short sleeved dress looking - possibly walking - away from the camera.
Jayceedove said:
I spent some years before filming that BBC documentary talking to them and going over the case in detail as it has always been pretty likely not to be an alien. And more likely to be an attempted hoax.
Jayceedove said:
Jim Templeton had a bit of a history of those. But here I am virtually certain he did not fake it. Partly because Kodak looked for signs of superimposition on request of the police. But mostly because I believed him and his wife that they did not do this.
More specifically he was the fire officer responsible for taking photos for police investigations so, as he pointed out, he would have been incredibly stupid to call the police in - as he did - to investigate a silly hoax he created as it could well have cost him that job to waste so much time. The police went to considerable effort to try to find out what was on the photo.
Kodak would look for signs of superimposition and, by implication, double-exposure; both of which leave particular signs around the film 'gate' area. -What they perhaps wouldn't have commented on is how the shot is exposed; although I'm aware claims to the effect they did are about... But, it's irrefutable fact that the figure contains hidden detail that is revealed with even simple adjustment. This evidences that the figure is 'blown out' or over exposed.
Jayceedove said:
So I looked for other options - and, of course, either his wife or other daughter or another person on the marsh was the most obvious as it was the very first thing Jim was told when the developed prints were handed over by the chemist - a pity the best shot was spoiled by the person walking in the background.
From the very start they considered this option and eliminated it - which had they just been doing that years later might have been something they just did not realise at the time, but is much less likely as they were forced to consider this right away.
Jayceedove said:
The most likely option is that someone tinkered with the film before it was sent off for processing trying to trick Jim but never confessed because he called the police in to investigate - something I expect any hoaxer would never have anticipated. Though Kodak's belief it was not a double exposure has to be considered.
Double-exposure techniques involve carefully marking the films starting position in the gate, making the first exposure set, rewinding the film, removing the tongue from the cartridge (this was, I believe, 35mm film) then making the second set of exposures. Kodak's assessment is supported by at least two points:
1) Even the most exotic of professional cameras will produce evidence of a double exposure around the edge of the frame as it's almost impossible that the film would 'register' twice with the micrometre (μm) perfect alignment not to make a 'double-edge' on the frame. - Certainly not with something like a Kodak Retina Reflex (as I've seen claimed as the camera in question) nor the (what looks to me like) the Contax/Pentacon F Jim Templeton is pictured holding.
2) To get the
image alignment 'right' on such a double-exposure would require either the most extraordinary skill in a studio or some precision rostrum work - again, sub-millimeter precision. - not likely IMO.
- It's to be noted that while Jim Templeton had bought himself what, for the time, was a pretty fancy camera - he wasn't a 'hardcore' amateur photographer who would most-likely process their own film, and shoot colour on slide film. - These were bog standard colour negs processed at the local chemist! - I would also say it's more probable that's a picture of a real space alien rather than somebody being able to pull off the 'double exposure trick' without any markings on the film or any clue what was actually on it.
Jayceedove said:
There are no files on the record that support the MoD did follow it up but the 'MIB' story that Jim and his wife both told me about involves somebody that appeared to be implying they were from the government.
Jayceedove said:
I recently told him UK abductee police officer Alan Godfrey had a similar visit by someone who interviewed him at Todmorden police station alongside Alan's commanding officer. He only identified himself as 'the man from the ministry' and reminded of his signature of the Official Secrets Act and asked Alan to sign a new waiver not to talk to the media.
Back in the early 60s, I'm not sure either the police or fire brigade would have routinely employed the same sort of 'forensic photographers' they did in later years. - So simply being the 'bloke at the fire station wot can work the camera' is not a massive thing; and I suspect you've been sold a bit of a dummy in that respect Jenny.
Where Alan's story -
having read his book and considering it a volume of some value - is in my view
entirely straightforward
and credible. I'm less inclined to view this piece of embroidery as anything but that. The possibility has been raised that these people (the MIBs in the Templeton case) were 'UFO cranks' (or possible journalists?) using deception to gain a first-hand account; that seems not unlikely.
What kills this for me though is that "Jim Templeton had a bit of a history" - which implies he was/is a bit of a chancer... So did the MIBs exist at all?
And here's the thing...
If you look through the viewfinder of one of those old early SLRs (maybe the nice folks at the museum in Bradford would let you?) you'll find that you only see maybe 60% of the full frame that goes onto film. And that the focusing screen just doesn't work as well as any SLR made from about the late-70s on. - All you'll see sharply is the centre with the edges falling off sharply in both brightness and focus... No built-in adjustable 'diopter' tot he eyepiece either, and no framing marks.
Another point is that many early SLRs and their associated lenses lacked a mechanism to automatically close the aperture diaphragm as the picture was taken. Instead, the aperture ring needed to be manually turned to the appropriate f-stop just before you pressed the shutter... What's more, there was no instant return mirror - so for a good 1/4-1/2 second before the shutter was pressed you were pretty much plunged into darkness, and after were in complete darkness 'till the camera was wound on and reset.
The effect of that is it's entirely possible for 'somebody' to have walked into that frame as the picture was taken, and simply not been seen! - They'd only have had to be there for (literally) a fraction of a second.
And I think there is the cornerstone of the explanation... Jim Templeton genuinely saw nobody in shot as he closed the aperture ring and pressed the shutter. - By the time he looked up from the camera and his eyes readjusted they were gone; but they'd been there just long enough to spoil what was otherwise a nice family photo. The rest, I strongly suggest, is maybe down to a wee bit of opportunism combined with heels being dug in.
- Neither Jim Templeton nor his wife are lying per se... they're simply mistaken and entrenched in that mistake.
)
