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

The Cumberland Spaceman

DrPaulLee said:
Did the photographer use an SLR camera or a "point and click" type? When using one of the latter type many years ago, I found that very often what you see through the tiny viewfinder is not what the lens sees. I found myself having to compensate for this offset. Perhaps the photographer didn't see the figure because it wasn't in the viewfinder?
Click to expand...
Templeton was documented as using a Pentacon F SLR. This still doesn't mean he obviously saw everything in the scene, because his view was limited to this early SLR system's small eyepiece.
 
I don't think they'd invented 'photobombing' back then - it was just called 'getting in the bloody way'.

I think the 'crawling person' imagined that they were low enough that they weren't in the shot, without realising that the picture wasn't just her daughter or sister's head, but the whole body plus part of the background.
 
the SOLWAY FIRTH SPACEMAN ( a.k.a the Solway Spaceman & the Cumberland/Cumbrian Spaceman ) .

Always been fascinated with this photograph , I'd love to know the truth behind it .
Going to do some digging on my own regarding this famous pic .
 
Last edited:
Jokers Wild said:
Always been fascinated with this photograph , I'd love to know the truth behind it .
Click to expand...

I think we can say with a very-high degree of certainty: it's been debunked. Comprehensively. Here and elsewhere.

It's not so much a space-man as a 'space-mum'..... (have a look back through this thread, especially Page 16 and earlier).......sorry, I would've preferred it to have been an exotic answer. But it isn't.

Screenshot 2022-06-16 015931.png
 
Ermintruder said:
I think we can say with a very-high degree of certainty: it's been debunked. Comprehensively. Here and elsewhere.

It's not so much a space-man as a 'space-mum'..... (have a look back through this thread, especially Page 16 and earlier).......sorry, I would've preferred it to have been an exotic answer. But it isn't.

View attachment 56215
Click to expand...
And Bald!
 
Ermintruder said:
I think we can say with a very-high degree of certainty: it's been debunked. Comprehensively. Here and elsewhere.

It's not so much a space-man as a 'space-mum'..... (have a look back through this thread, especially Page 16 and earlier).......sorry, I would've preferred it to have been an exotic answer. But it isn't.

View attachment 56215
Click to expand...
Very impressive, and Annie Templeton did have that short dark hair. I haven't seen a version as clear as this one, and it makes it so obvious that it is the mother.
I think also that the fact she is standing on an incline behind the little girl gave her an odd 'floating' appearance.
 
I know I will be voted off the planet earth for saying this, but the image of the person behind is so very white.

I believe this an unexplainable photo of the paranormal.
 
eburacum said:
Or over-exposure. You can even see the fastening for her bra in the centre of her back.
Click to expand...
I agree - the mother figure is horrendously over-exposed, her dress appears white, it was actually a light blue, and her hair appears oddly from the glare of the sun.
One can plainly see her bra, and even the 'buttons' on the back of the dress.
 
And this wasn't supposed to be a 'studio' shot, it was just a man taking a snap of his daughter in a field. So he won't have been fiddling with all the camera settings, trying not to 'overexpose the background'. Because there wasn't meant to be a background. It was just his daughter and some flowers. The fact that his wife was standing in the back of the shot was incidental.
 
I took a lot of convincing charliebrown, but with advances in home computing it is now much easier to manipulate the original image and reveal its true identity than it was back at the start of this thread and indeed this forum (and also the days of 'The Unexplained' magazine and 'Strange but True").

It is his wife and as already pointed out, you can even see her bra strap. It has been a wonderful mystery to pursue over the years and it gives me a warm glow on this gloomy Sunday afternoon to visit this old familiar thread again, but it has been explained. Here is Mum's dress again:

1655648065662.png


Now look at Ermintruder's post above - they are identical sleeveless garments
 
Last edited:
Paul_Exeter said:
I took a lot of convincing charliebrown, but with advances in home computing it is now much easier to manipulate the original image and reveal its true identity than it was back at the start of this thread and indeed this forum (and also the days of 'The Unexplained' magazine and 'Strange but True").

It is his wife and as already pointed out, you can even see her bra strap. It has been a wonderful mystery to pursue over the years and it gives me a warm glow on this gloomy Sunday afternoon to visit this old familiar thread again, but it has been explained. Here is Mum's dress again:

View attachment 56310

Now look at Ermintruder's post above - they are identical sleeveless garments
Click to expand...
Exactly the photo I was looking for - Thank you for posting it. It is also the 'tight' bodice of the dress, down to the waistline, it is the mother.
Great mysterious photo though!
 
I am sure everyone is correct that this is the wife in the background.

But what keeps nagging at my brain is that according to wikipedia, Jim Templeton took three shots of the same pose.

Even Jim was lost for explanation why the spaceman image was only in the middle photo.

Supposedly Kodak verified these photos were not tampered with.

Could have the wife moved away from the camera that quickly ?
 
charliebrown said:
I am sure everyone is correct that this is the wife in the background.

But what keeps nagging at my brain is that according to wikipedia, Jim Templeton took three shots of the same pose.

Even Jim was lost for explanation why the spaceman image was only in the middle photo.

Supposedly Kodak verified these photos were not tampered with.

Could have the wife moved away from the camera that quickly ?
Click to expand...
In the old days when you had to wind on a film after each exposure there would be plenty of time for his wife to just step to one side, out of shot, particularly if chasing after another daughter.
 
charliebrown said:
True, I forgot in those days one had to advance the film.

Today these digital cameras take multiple shots almost instantly.
Click to expand...
If he was using a Pentacon F camera then he would have to wind on the film by turning a knob rather than use a lever. This would involve taking the camera away from his eye and take a few seconds to wind on the film. Photographers these days don't know they are born :)

https://oldcamera.blog/2018/03/17/pentacon-f-contax-f/
 
Jim was a fireman.
Im an ex firefighter.
We are RENOWNED for stories, merry japes, black humour and frankly, taking the piss .
I guarantee he made this up based on a real photo of his wife. He went into work, on a quiet night shift , showed the photo and spun a yarn.
 
After all these years this photo is still my “ Achilles Heel “.

In those years Kodak offered a reward for anyone to prove the photograph a hoax, but no one tried to claim their reward.

Jim who was at Burgh Marsh was near the Chapelcross Atomic Power Planet which at the time was reporting UFO sightings.

Jim Templeton claims he was harassed by “ men in black “ who insisted there was a second alien involved.

Jim said he did not know anything about a second alien.

Jim claims he took a second roll of film that only partially came back from the film developer.

An ICBM made in Spadeadam, England trying to be launched in Woomera, Australia was stopped by two silver looking aliens.

The Woomera security film disappeared.

At the same time an ICBM Atlas was stopped from testing on the west coast by a UFO firing laser beams at the Atlas.

Too many loose ends with this event.

In the original photo, the nuclear plant is seen on the right side of the photo in the background.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I feel the 'spaceman' has been conclusively proven to be the mother caught in the background (see the many posts on this thread and the photo that shows the mother in her sleeveless dress). Subsequently a small cottage industry of myth and legend has grown ups round this case.

However, it has provided a lot of Fortean intrigue over the years, kept us busy on this forum and long may it do so along with its 'cousin' the Ilkley spaceman
 
I know posters want to “ throw me out of the row boat “ but as you say this is still intriguing.

The original photo explained as the girl in perfect focus but the mother is behind the girl in a powder blue dress, but wait the mother is out of focus and that makes her dress completely white.

How can you have an in focus and out of focus picture at the same time ?

That is why Kodak never paid out the reward if this was a hoax because no one really had a logical explanation.

The Kodak reward was not money but a year supply of any film the person wanted.
 
charliebrown said:
I know posters want to “ throw me out of the row boat “ but as you say this is still intriguing.

The original photo explained as the girl in perfect focus but the mother is behind the girl in a powder blue dress, but wait the mother is out of focus and that makes her dress completely white.

How can you have an in focus and out of focus picture at the same time ?

That is why Kodak never paid out the reward if this was a hoax because no one really had a logical explanation.

The Kodak reward was not money but a year supply of any film the person wanted.
Click to expand...
I quite like this article, sums it up well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-27391210

But no-one has proven anything conclusively.
 
charliebrown said:
The original photo explained as the girl in perfect focus but the mother is behind the girl in a powder blue dress, but wait the mother is out of focus and that makes her dress completely white.

How can you have an in focus and out of focus picture at the same time ?
Click to expand...
It is exposure rather than focus that makes the dress appear white but they are both a consequence of the same effect. The camera is focussed and exposed correctly for the girl who is close to the camera and wearing a dark dress. Because her mother is further away and wearing a pale dress, the camera is not able to focus and expose her correctly too. Cameras just can't do that. You can correct exposure a bit in the dark room but once you have blown all the detail out of a light coloured object, it is difficult to get it back although some people have done it fairly successfully with photoshop to show that the figure is wearing a blue sleeveless dress, exactly like the one Mrs Templeton is wearing.
 
charliebrown said:
How can you have an in focus and out of focus picture at the same time ?
Click to expand...
Look up 'depth of field'. If something close is in focus something further away will be out of focus. How much depends on camera, lens, and aperture set. I'm sorry, but this is photography 101. At least, it used to be when everything on a camera you had to set yourself.

And as Min Bannister points out, a correct exposure for a subject in the foreground can easily over-expose something in the background.

It's not a 'hoax'. It's a perfectly normal picture with an out-of-focus and over-exposed person accidentally caught in the background. Which is why Kodak didn't pay out.
 
Last edited:
And yet people have pointed out the Chapelcross Nuclear plant clearly seen in the right background.

So we have in focus, out of focus, then back to in focus showing the nuclear plant ?
 
Nothing in the background is in focus. The cooling towers appear as a vaguely rectangular blob. Yes, that probably is the plant because the location of the photo is known, but it is not in focus.
 
charliebrown said:
And yet people have pointed out the Chapelcross Nuclear plant clearly seen in the right background.

So we have in focus, out of focus, then back to in focus showing the nuclear plant ?
Click to expand...
Have you actually looked at the full photo? The Chapelcross cooling towers could not be described as “clearly seen“ or “in focus” :

4390AB57-2835-4C24-B84F-7D812FE899F6.jpeg

It’s just a photo with shallow depth of field (wide aperture, low F-stop number). Reading a beginner’s guide to photography will help you understand why the image looks the way it does.
 
If the mom is supposedly so out of focus to make her powder blue dress completely white, then the long distance to the Chapelcross Nuclear Plant in the background should be a complete blur and indistinguishable.

I do respect all the given opinions, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top