I don't think it was missed exactly, as far as I remember Mrs Templeton had always been offered as a possible explanation - I must admit that I never quite saw it until I saw the colour corrected version, which made it so much clearer - I could never quite understand how the 'visor' with the white 'helmet' could be someone's head, but it makes absolute sense now.
This suggestion fits really well with what we see. And it give me an idea....
Look what happens when I rotate the picture about 15 degrees to the left, as viewed.
I immediately get the impression of someone running. That curious elbow becomes naturally bent, and there's a hint of balanced movement from what little we see the left arm.
We then see (by tilting the picture even more to the left) that the 'hood' may represent the metacentre horizontal datum relative to gravity...
Lightweight hoods tend to bounce with movement to a position of neutral repose in the vertical axis. But note how there is a horizontal displacement to the right, belayed by the neck (as viewed)....just as there would be from the wind/draught effect, as someone runs or dives rapidly into a light headwind.
Ignore the grain-lines, look at how this does start to feel like someone pitched forwards, moving fast.
And could that be a face profile along the left-hand side, leading edge??
Does that look like a raglan sleeve join, tailing down at a lazy 45deg from the 'hood'? Is that dark blob under the 'hood' simply a trapped shadow?
It was always a weird idea to think some kind of 'astronaut'..alien or human.. was standing there.
I mean what would a human astronaut be doing there right at that moment and is it very likely that any 'space alien' would dress the same way we would in similar astronaut gear..?
Digital correction/alteration of photographs is relatively-recent: traditional 'wet' lab handling (or mishandling) of photonegative film stock could've helped show-up this prosaic mumsplanation decades ago.
It's a long time since I was taught (as a propa student) classic photography C41 film processing, and (whilst that could not easily-reproduce the instant feedback variety & range of colour options that digital photoediting provides to everyone) it's intriguing that this rigour was never applied within the era of the picture's origin.
Particularly since I seem to remember that a key plank in the professed veracity of this image is that Kodak themselves spoke to it's evident unamendedness*.
(ps there will be a better word than 'unamendedness', but I'm damned if I can think right now what it would be)