Spaceman?
I can't be the only person on Earth who also thinks this looks like somebody out for a run, with their back to the camera.
If you look at the 'non-expanded' image the 'bump' on the back appears to be a back pack of some kind. You can make out two slip straps that come down the back in a V shape to the area.
When the image is expanded the 'visor' appears more reflective and solid than in the original image. I wonder if this is a product of the image extraction process.
I also wonder if the scans are based upon digital scans of the original negative or scans of the physical photograph (or subsequant copy of it) as the quality / colour differences in between versions are quite striking.
8 feet tall? Where is the evidence for this? As you cannot see the exact spot where the feet lie (and the photographer claims not have seen the 'person') you cannot truly judge how far they are from the camera and cannot therefore assertain how tale they are. I think this link really does demonstrate the very real evidence for this:
http://www.geocities.com/lab_lav/the_cumberland_man.html
As for the comments relating to the photographer not seeing anyone that day. I once saw a chap nearly fall off the rock of Gibraltar trying to get a better angle on a monkey. I think its known as 'target blindness' where you become totally focused on one particular subject and you simply ignore everything else.
All comments relating to Men in Black and his wife seeing a flying saucer complete with alien pilots appears to come out some time after the event, as a means to support the claim.
It's not very compelling evidence and the image quite clearly does not show a spaceman, as originally suggested (8 foot or otherwise)
But I'm sure there are still people who still believe that this image holds a compelling truth about it. To them I say, please find a better example.
Many thanks for reading.