maximus otter
Recovering policeman
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 13,969
I noted that in an online version of his account (his words), he said that he noted that two old ladies were wandering about further afield - which would seem to discount the figure being anything to do with them.I've taken a look at a few facts we can pull from the account:
1. Templeton was a fireman in Carlisle, so I'll assume that he approached the Solway Firth from the direction of Carlisle, which is about 7 miles southeast of the locus.
2. The "scenic", isolated, part of the road bordering the Solway Firth is about 2½ miles long:
Drumburgh to Burgh by Sands marked in yellow
3. He intended to take a picture of his daughter in her new dress. That suggests that clambering over fences, wading through mud, crossing ditches etc. would not have been his intention. I don't imagine that his missus, a 1964 housewife, would have been much more inclined to be adventurous. (I once read that 90% of the people who visit the Scottish Highlands never walk farther than 100 yards from their cars.)
4. He describes there being "...a couple of old women sitting in a car at the far end of the marsh". As I'm assuming that he was driving from east to west, this suggests to me that he was at or near the western end of the road that borders the scenic area.
OS 1:50,000 scale map, blue squares equal 1km
5. A layby or parking area on the south side of the road would have been most convenient to someone driving - as we do in the UK - on the left side of the road.
6. The Carlisle & Silloth Bay branch of the LNER ran parallel, and close to the road, immediately south of the road. It didn't close until 7th September 1964. I believe it's likely that for reasons of safety, noise and of views, Templeton would have had his picnic on the opposite, northern, side of the road, closest to the Solway Firth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_railway_history#Closures
Overview showing proximity of railway line (long black & white alternate dashes) to road (parallel pecked lines)
Closeup emphasising nearness of railway to south side of the road at west end, nearer to Drumburgh
7. He says that the "MIB" accompanied him to the locus of the incident, then abandoned him to "...walk a mile to the nearest garage". I've done a Yell check, and the nearest garage services advertised today (47 years later...) are near Carlisle, which is - as stated above - several miles away to the east. I'm going to speculate that either:
a) There was once a garage in Drumburgh, the nearest village to my best guess as to the place of the sighting, or;
b) Templeton walked to the public telephone kiosk in Drumburgh to arrange a lift.
8. My best guess - and it is a guess - is that the locus of the sighting was within the area I've delineated in a red oval below:
This is based on Templeton's estimate of his having to walk a mile to get assistance (of some sort).
Edited to add:
Two places suggest themselves on a Google Earth Street View flyby:
a) Immediately east of the Easton turnoff there is an apparently popular spot (based on grass wear) on the north side of the road: 54°55'33.62"N, 3° 7'49.18"W
b) Farther east, by the cattle grid at 54°55'30.30"N, 3° 7'7.64"W
Over to my fellow Forteans.
maximus otter
It seems I read a conflicting report 'EnolaGaia.' Your absolutely correct. . . read this version just a minute ago, and it defines what he said he saw at the time.
blessmycottonsocks
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,417
- Location
- Wessex and Mercia
Yes. The mum really existed and was wearing a light blue dress on that day!
Well, it would have saved a lot of time puzzling it out - if her husband had recognised her?
What husband doesn't recognise his own Mother ~ from the back, or from the front!
Doesn't make sense really, as I'm sure he would have easily known the figure was his own Mother, dressed in clothes that he would have easily recognised.
(edited: Wife, to Mother)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
He seems to have been immersed in getting a good shot of the daughter, and may well have simply not noticed the mother through the viewfinder.
Another possibility is that days later he suffered the Mandela Effect, completely forgetting the mother had been (or could have been) in the frame.
There was a second daughter present on that day's outing, and Templeton didn't take a single photo of her (so far as is known). I find that kinda odd.
Paul_Exeter
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 3,821
With all respect, I feel you have answered your own question. He didn't recognise the 'spaceman' as his wife/second daughter due to the exposure and lighting conditions created by the aspect of the sun in relation to the girl in a photograph he viewed some time later after it was taken. Thus a legend was born in a pre-digital age that grew to include alleged spacemen at a rocket launch in Australia. It's a wonderful legend that captivated me in my youth when that image appeared in books and magazines. However, years later we can now manipulate the image to demonstrate that the 'spacesuit' matches the hem lines of the dress worn by his wife in one of the other photographs taken that day and sadly that has put the matter to rest (in my opinion).
catseye
Old lady trouser-smell with yesterday's knickers
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 8,699
- Location
- York
Not only did he not take any pictures of his other daughter, but, according to this account, he seems to have forgotten that she was there at all! His wife and daughter hadn't seen ANYONE NEAR THEM AT THE TIME... apart from the other daughter presumably. Unless she'd vamished. Maybe THAT is the true mystery here...
Austin Popper
Emperor of Antarctica
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,504
- Location
- Colorado, where the gold is still elusive
I think it's high time this was done.
I thought 'High-Time' was an astronomical term?
Ermintruder
The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,206
Well, I'll be damned.....the mystery may now have taken another turn, towards its potential solution.
The eccentric-and-loveable Professor Simon (Youtube science film-maker extrordinaire) has taken a second bite at it: and it IS worth your time watching this:
(We need to talk.....)
The eccentric-and-loveable Professor Simon (Youtube science film-maker extrordinaire) has taken a second bite at it: and it IS worth your time watching this:
(We need to talk.....)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
It's an interesting take on the photo and the scene, but I'm not buying his explanation at all. For example ...
(1) If it's a pressurized hazmat / safety suit as Simon claims - where's the hose that tethers the suit to its compressor / blower?
(2) Who ever saw or heard of a pressurized (or, for that matter, un-pressurized) short sleeved hazmat suit?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
Here is the comparison photo to which Simon refers - showing the original 1964 Templeton photo and a 2017 re-creation of the scene done for The One Show.
I don't believe these two photos were taken anywhere near the same spot, or else the terrain has been heavily modified during the intervening 53 years.
It's also clear the relative orientations and distances among the photographer, subject, and background figure aren't the same.
Here's a publicity photo illustrating the setup for the 2017 BBC photo re-creation.
NOTE: This bit was supposedly broadcast on the 30 November 2017 episode of The One Show. That is not among the episodes available at the BBC website.
There's no way the 1964 shot was taken up close to a rising ground feature (the berm?). The 1964 photo shows more gently and smoothly rising ground (if it was sloping upward at all).
The 2017 background figure is clearly much farther away than the 1964 figure. If the 1964 figure were that far away from the girl as the 2017 figure the mystery "spaceman" would have to be on the order of at least 15 - 20 feet tall. How did Templeton (or the wife and other daughter) miss a giant?
Furthermore, it appears to me the 2017 shot was taken at a higher angle (downward toward the girl) than Templeton's shot.
I don't believe these two photos were taken anywhere near the same spot, or else the terrain has been heavily modified during the intervening 53 years.
It's also clear the relative orientations and distances among the photographer, subject, and background figure aren't the same.
Here's a publicity photo illustrating the setup for the 2017 BBC photo re-creation.
https://jamesaconrad.com/media/Solway-Spaceman-photo.html
NOTE: This bit was supposedly broadcast on the 30 November 2017 episode of The One Show. That is not among the episodes available at the BBC website.
There's no way the 1964 shot was taken up close to a rising ground feature (the berm?). The 1964 photo shows more gently and smoothly rising ground (if it was sloping upward at all).
The 2017 background figure is clearly much farther away than the 1964 figure. If the 1964 figure were that far away from the girl as the 2017 figure the mystery "spaceman" would have to be on the order of at least 15 - 20 feet tall. How did Templeton (or the wife and other daughter) miss a giant?
Furthermore, it appears to me the 2017 shot was taken at a higher angle (downward toward the girl) than Templeton's shot.
Paul_Exeter
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 3,821
Well, just when I thought we could put this to bed the Professor raises a very good point about the exposure of the photograph in relation to the blue dress. The ditch in question was mentioned earlier in this thread (see above) and is not insignificant given its Roman origins. As for the One Show, it's budget journalism and I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time; the horizon is blurred and they are clearly not in the the correct location.
blessmycottonsocks
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,417
- Location
- Wessex and Mercia
Agree with @EnolaGaia.
The professor works hard to make his case, but I cannot now un-see the figure as this person viewed from the rear:
rather than one of these:
Cecil Baargs
Junior Acolyte
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 72
Except that he was up there because he specifically wanted to photograph his daughter's new colourful flowery dress on new Kodak colour film and posed her accordingly. It's bizarre to suggest that all present forgot that imperative and an unnoticed photobomb took place?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
Maybe he was taking so long to pose Elizabeth the mother (or, for that matter, the other daughter) had time to wander into the scene without knowing he was finally ready to take the shot.
Last edited:
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,545
We are not talking about a professional photographer here. It’s just a bloke with a slightly dodgy camera taking some bad family snaps.
C'mm. . . Excuse me 'Analogue Boy,' but after reading your present comment i.e. "We are not talking about a professional photographer here."
I started to wonder about just how competent a photographer he might, or might not have been, and I eventually came across this website. . .
http://www.dumfriescourier.co.uk/story.php?pheader=3&id=2330
On this websites page (about Jim Templeton), it states this ~
[THE FAMOUS Solway Firth spaceman picture taken by well-known border picture archivist Jim Templeton in May, 1964 is causing debate in UFO research circles.
Jim has never lost his passion for photography and he has built up an historical archive of old pictures from Cumbria, Annandale and Eskdale now extending to 20,000 images.]
So, given this information is accurate and correct, it would be very wrong to suggest that Jim Templeton was not a professional photographer, maybe he didn't earn his living via photography - as he was a fireman, but after taking 20,000 images I think you could definitively say, that he was most definitely well equipped with photographic knowledge and experience after taking that many images!
Last edited:
catseye
Old lady trouser-smell with yesterday's knickers
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 8,699
- Location
- York
Perhaps (and I know little to nothing about photography, so ignore me if it's implausible), he had his camera set up specifically to pick up the colour and detail of the daughter's dress and this caused the background to become unfocussed and 'washed out' colourwise? His ability with a camera isn't in question, it's just human nature to not see background (look at all the professional wedding photographers who take a beautifully posed picture of the wedding group with - for example - small bridesmaids peeing on the grass or dogs up to no good, in the background.
Nosmo King
I'm not a cat
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2021
- Messages
- 7,499
Very true! Guess we'll just have to wait and see what developments, if any, are forthcoming!
Fluttermoth
Cult of Jari
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,362
Not at all bizarre; being hyper focused on one thing can make you less aware of things going on in the background!
Austin Popper
Emperor of Antarctica
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,504
- Location
- Colorado, where the gold is still elusive
Thanks for posting that. I had been meaning to find it and post a link. There are other such videos out there, and it's amazing what we miss when we're focused on something else.
Templeton's photos don't impress me much. They are decent snapshots, like most of us take, but I don't see evidence of a lot of skill as a photographer. I was just digging around in the middle of this thread, and saw that someone said there were three versions of this pose, this one being the second. Has anyone ever seen those others? Is there a website where all of that day's photos are collected? It would be interesting to look at all of them. I hope it's not someplace like ATS. Urk!
I suppose I'll have to look at that video where the perfesser makes some silly claims. I've seen that guy's videos before, and I'm afraid I can't take him seriously. His horrid teeth certainly don't help.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
That could well have been a post I made in June 2012.
AFAIK there aren't three shots of Elizabeth sitting on the ground (i.e., 3 tries at the shot in which the 'spaceman' appears). Instead, there are 3 snapshots in total taken at Solway Firth that day.
Years ago I saved this photo, which was allegedly grabbed from a video or article about the incident. It supposedly shows Templeton's camera and the original prints of the three snapshots he took that day.
This is the photo to which I referred in my June 2012 post. No, I don't recall its original source. It's no longer accessible on the webpage I cited, and that webpage doesn't offer any detailed description of the prints.
Two of the snapshots have been widely seen over the years - the famous 'spaceman' shot (naturally) and the 'crawling wife' shot. The third shot was alleged to be a shot of the entire family taken nearby, either using the camera's time delay or being snapped by some other party using Templeton's camera. If this description of the third photo is true, it's the only one that shows the Templetons' older daughter.
There are many versions of the one famous snapshot to be found (color-manipulated; contrast-tweaked; etc.), but there aren't any three different snaps of the famous up-close pose.
ChasFink
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,511
Interesting. I've never seen the family photo. Does anyone have a bigger, clearer version? It would be nice to see full-length images of everyone there that day, and their clothes, so we can see if there is better correlation with the "spaceman".
Cochise
Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,474
I'm sorry, you are flogging this one to death and it won't wash. The photographs are not well posed and are slightly out of focus. And I speak as an enthusiastic but amateur photographer - although of some 50 years standing.
It's abundantly clear, from the content here alone, who the alleged spaceman is.
I'm no professional debunker, in fact I'd love to see some credible evidence of anything supernatural / extra-terrestrial, but this isn't it. Try something more difficult to explain like the Lead Masks case. Indeed there are few cases that I could categorically dismiss as being neither abnormal nor deliberate hoax and I'm absolutely clear this is neither - its just a mistake that was after the fact parlayed up to something of interest to the wackier sections of the media.
Not trying to be brutal, but people obsessing about a case like this does not help in trying to establish any potentially genuine cases.
Speaking for myself 'Cochise,' "inquisitive" - not obsessive. Never hurts to ask questions, or to try and find some kind of truth in everything that others may, and probably have distorted.
charliebrown
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2020
- Messages
- 4,207
- Location
- Earth
This is not really a straightforward situation.
This photo has captured the imagination of the world for 57 years.
I still go back to Kodak saying this picture is genuine, so I vote a paranormal situation like another dimension present.
This photo has captured the imagination of the world for 57 years.
I still go back to Kodak saying this picture is genuine, so I vote a paranormal situation like another dimension present.