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

The Cumberland Spaceman

There's a bit about this photo' in the new FT mag'. Although none of it takes into the account of this forum and its findings! :evil:
Good that someone still can view a decent copy of it.
Anyone know where there's a decent image on the net? It turns out that on the original, you can make out a brimmed hat on the figure and *apparantly*...a bra strap!!!
Anyone?
 
This seems to be as good as can be found...

post-7-1083274865.jpg
 
Huckleberry Swamp Hound said:
Not related to the Cumberland case but the link below is an interesting parrallel of a more recent photograph also purporting to show an 'entity' behind a childs' head for which an action figure has been suggested as an explanation:

http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/aug04/creature.htm
Click to expand...

Bloody hell! GhostStudy actually saying that an odd picture is NOT paranormal?!
 
I think the figure is Michael Barrymore. Thats why its "All white!"







I'll get me coat.
 
For some reason I've always mentally labelled this photo "The Wandering Beekeeper".
 
I dont think its a helmet, I think most kids had haircuts like that in the sixties.
 
I gotta say it. The Cumberland Spaceman is one of the lamest fortean pictures I've ever seen. It would be laughed right off of Ghoststudy.com. It's charming to see such a fuss made over it, as if it were a doddering old uncle.

I mean, how 'bout the Brown Lady of Raynam Hall or something? That's a classic. And why isn't the "spaceman" considered a ghost? The back story seems to conform much more to the archetypal spook pic.

Yeah, I know. I'm an American twat. :D
 
Minor Drag said:
I gotta say it. The Cumberland Spaceman is one of the lamest fortean pictures I've ever seen. It would be laughed right off of Ghoststudy.com. It's charming to see such a fuss made over it, as if it were a doddering old uncle.
Click to expand...

Just playing Devil's Advocate here . . . but for a photo to be genuine, why does it have to be cool? Isn't it possible that some true instances would make lame pictures that appeared fake?

Just saying.
 
It's also interesting to note that the Cumberland Spaceman has now morphed into the Solway Spaceman, presumably to stop all the sausage jokes :D

I think the reason all the fuss has been made about the photograph is because most people first come across it as a grainy black & white nth generation copy in a book (or in these modern times, a website). These copies of copies do indeed look like a spaceman elevating above a child, and the text of such publications also tend to emphasise that the photo has been examined by Kodak experts and that these unnamed experts are satisfied that it cannot have been a hoax or a double-exposure, etc, etc.

Incidently, I'm sure I've read the theory that it is a ghost with his/her back turned away from the camera... it's probably in the same book I had as a child which contained the one true Thunderbird photo.

Jane.
 
My own pet theory on this, is that there are some beings who either live or visit this planet, who have mastery of time such that they can even operate within their own local time frames 'between' ours.

Not that they challenge the so-called Laws-Of-Physics, they just discovered new ones just like we will one day.

I think whoever they are, they have a sense of humour. I think one of them saw this wee lassy being photographed, and thought it would be a right old lark to zip into the frame in their local time (unseen by us of course as they would relatively be going faster than bullets), hang around just long-enough to register on film, then zip out the frame again, all before the shutter closes, so of course they wouldn't be 'seen' as such.

I bet that's why the being is at that odd angle -when one strains a pose for a photograph a bit too long, you end up wobbling tilting a bit.

A heck of a lot of weird reports might be partially explainable if one takes into account the possibility of time manipulation, invisiblity, vanishing UFO's etc
 
But, if you read this thread properly, you'll realise that the human in the background is standing at a natural vertical angle. It's the camera that is off the axis not the person. THere are many corrected photograph links on here alone.
The original, (or close original) photograph shows a woman standing there with her back to the camera, wearing a white top complete with bra strap showing through and there's none of this "Helmet" effect.
I will smile boldly when someone puts a near original or better rendition of it up for us to see/examine.
 
..But, if you read this thread properly, you'll realise that the human in the background is standing at a natural vertical angle. It's the camera that is off the axis not the person.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but with all due respect I don't see it that way at all. Without a plumb line marker there is not a way to be that sure if the girl sits wonky or the beastie behind her stands wonky.

That a woman with a floppy hat could manifest as an image like that, also without the knowledge of the photographer (I obviously don't think he is a prankster) would be a more extreme explanation than time-travelling jokers for me. It is transparently a humanoid in a suit that is helmeted and padded to some degree. The padding is so thick it would even allow ignoring the view that the arm is seen from the back -it could easily be from the front, the shoulder blade and elbow have more than adequate articulation to do that.

Even to play devil's advocate, if you tilt the photo and try to fit and assume the figure in white is standing upright, you cannot, it would still be at a weird angle. That just does not work. The crude image I have seen where someone has cut-and-past a guy in a black suit over the figure, is not faithful to the way the white figure stands. It's no good manipulating evidence like that.

This image is FAR from explained.
 
This is what I mean.

Image A shows the grass horizon being rotated with the help from a level. As we see the white entity would still be leaning at an angle; in fact in this scenario the only object being true to this assumed horizon is the little girl -as it should be.

Image B shows the assumed horizon of the white entity with respect to the head and torso. As we see, the horizon is now comically wrong for both subjects.

(the link below will autoload after a few seconds if you have a busy connection)

http://img295.echo.cx/img295/1975/falsehorizon14kf.gif

[Emp edit: Changing image to link as the image was far too big.]
 
Spaceparrot, excellent work there! You've done that yourself? I like to see people going out of there way just to add to the discussion with more than words as you have here.

I'm not sure about the angle of the subject. But I think that the person might have been.........

:twisted: (kidding)
 
I still think that it was a woman with her back to the camera, tight, summery dress, possibly wearing a white cardigan, right arm bent, hand on hip and wearing a headscarf. No woman would have been without one, on a windy day, in the 1960's.

:)

cumbsman.jpg
 
either way the person (if it is a person) is standing a good 5 feet off the ground. I dont understand that.
 
Not quite 5 feet, surely? If the figure itself were five feet tall, it would need to be twice as high as it is (if it were floating 5 ft), and out of the frame.
 
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
Those pictures with the axis on the perpendicullar aren'tby any means true. Noone stands perfectly vertical unless trained to do so. It's not a natural stance, especially in the field.
Look at the bicycle photographs I did, albeit in jest.
I can't for the life of me see how the background figure would have to be floating.
 
Hi everyone. Long time member, even longer time lurker here.

To me, the pic simply looks like someone standing in the background. I don't see anyone floating"5 feet off the ground" at all. To further illustrate, I've set up a few images. The pics are in thumb form here, just click the thumbnails for larger versions.

This is the original image:
post710832748657ob.jpg


This is the pic rotated a bit counter-clockwise to even out the horizon as it is in the image. The upper portion of the girl has been blocked out:


This is the image with the girl completely "masked out", isolating the "spaceman" and background.


This is the same version as above, with the exception of an actual space suited astronaut that I put in to demonstrate relative size of the Cumberland Spaceman to an average adult in more or less the same distance from the camera. Looks like my spaceman's feet touch the ground with room to spare:





Let me just say that I chose a space astronaut to compare in a tongue-in-cheek way, cause I seriously doubt that there was anyone running around out there that seemingly warm day dressed in a space suit. To me, it appears to be a normal sized person wearing white who just happened to get caught in the frame in an admittedly awkward physical position.

I mean let's be real, there is absolutely nothing in this pic that cancels out or even seriously questions the chance that this was just a normal adult standing in the background.
 
Mike Gomez,

You say "..I mean let's be real, there is absolutely nothing in this pic that cancels out or even seriously questions the chance that this was just a normal adult standing in the background"

I disagree. You have to take account of the witness testimony when assessing any photograph. The photographer was taking some considered photos of his kid and I find it stretching things too far to assume he was (a) a liar, period (b) unable to be aware he has a tall female in a floppy hat looking like a spaceman jumping on a trampoline behind his daughter.

I stand by my view that this is a suited entity, though the circumstances are a mystery...hence my admitted speculation about local-time travelling jokers.


Justin Anstey said:
I can see nothing wrong with the figure's angle:
http://www.geocities.com/theysawthem/th ... _man2.html
Click to expand...

tut tut Justin, I already made a comment about folks massaging evidence to fit their perception, in your case, your imaginary red plumb line starts at the centre of the entities' head, but then veers off-track to the left of the hip area quite blatantly.
 
..and while I'm 'ere, I don't feel this may be a figure seen from behind.

There is clear bulge and shadow from the pectoral (upper chest) area which is either masculine muscle or female breasts showing under the clothing/padded suit. You would only see shoulder blades bulge out from an upright person if they were bent over forwards. So, if this is a rear view of an upright person then that kind of bulging from what would be the scapulae (shoulder blade area) would only show from a human who developed the trapeziod muscles excessively -body-builders etc. Hardly our female in a dainty hat out for a stroll methinks, as I think Mrs Hulk would not have gone un-noticed by the photographer.

TBH I think this thread would be greatly helped by obtaining a proper modern scan of an original photo. Anyone know if this would be possible?
 
SpaceParrot said:
Mike Gomez,

You say "..I mean let's be real, there is absolutely nothing in this pic that cancels out or even seriously questions the chance that this was just a normal adult standing in the background"

I disagree. You have to take account of the witness testimony when assessing any photograph. The photographer was taking some considered photos of his kid and I find it stretching things too far to assume he was (a) a liar, period (b) unable to be aware he has a tall female in a floppy hat looking like a spaceman jumping on a trampoline behind his daughter.

I stand by my view that this is a suited entity, though the circumstances are a mystery...hence my admitted speculation about local-time travelling jokers.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, you are simply fooling yourself. As far as the witness testimony that there was no one else around when the picture was taken, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong, since anyone looking at the image can plainly see that there is. And if you actually took the time to look at my examples, you'll see that despite your flawed assumptions, there is absolutely no need for "trampolines" and such. It was just somebody in a white shirt passing by.

I mean which is the bigger stretch? There was a human being out walking around that day who happened to get photographed, or that there are time traveling cosmic prankster aliens out to screw with us? I would find it a lot more concievable that the witness lied. I mean be realistic for a second. If you can believe that time travelers are willing to go out of their way to play jokes on us, why can't you believe that the witness would as well? And wouldn't that be a FAR more reasonable explaination?

We don't need cosmic pranksters in this world. We've got plenty of our own, as this image clearly demonstrates.
 
>..In my opinion, you are simply fooling yourself. As far as the witness testimony that there was no one else around when the picture was taken, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong, since anyone looking at the image can plainly see that there is.

Of course 'normally', but I speculate it was not anyone remotely 'normal' and perhaps even someone operating in their in own local time. It is unbelievable now, to the short-sighted, but recall that only a few decades ago, scientists said anyone going beyond 30mph on a train would OBVIOUSLY be killed by the speed -with the bombastic assurances as yours.


>..And if you actually took the time to look at my examples, you'll see that despite your flawed assumptions, there is absolutely no need for "trampolines" and such.

They're far from flawed, and yes there is, this entity is clearly above the ground, though that will be a 'yes it is, no it isn't' between us forever. I am not alone in my view.

>..It was just somebody in a white shirt passing by.

No disrespect, but that's your view that the witness was plain blind or a liar, not mine.

>...I mean which is the bigger stretch? There was a human being out walking around that day who happened to get photographed...

Yes because this was no normal 'human', it is floating at an unaccountable angle, the witness wasn't blind and is not a liar. Calling witnesses to the fantastic liars is the always the cheap cop-out of the head-in-the-sand brigade.

>..or that there are time traveling cosmic prankster aliens out to screw with us?

Why not? We're a planet whose rulers are aggressive Earth-centrics who think they know everything about the laws of physics, including those we haven't discovered yet. Screwing them around is the least the powers-that-be deserve, such as in this 'message' left on this photograph.

>..We don't need cosmic pranksters in this world. We've got plenty of our own, as this image clearly demonstrates.

That image was not hoaxable in that era, as photographic experts have agreed. The only questions are like yours, eg the witness was blind or lying. Have faith in people and the humbleness to admit our technology is primitive compared to races that may have started thousands of years ahead of us.
 
SpaceParrot said:
...
They're far from flawed, and yes there is, this entity is clearly above the ground, though that will be a 'yes it is, no it isn't' between us forever. I am not alone in my view...
Click to expand...

Not if the the ground slopes up behind the girl, and the figure is standing on the brow of the hill or ridge. There's nothing particularly odd about the angle it they were caught in midstride or even mid stumble.

And when you're concentrating on the subject in a photo, its very easy to miss what's going on in the back ground.

The picture is easily hoaxable with a 1960s camera, the photographic experts are plainy talking through their arseholes.

BTW: I don't think it's a hoax just a weird image caught in the background.
 
>...The picture is easily hoaxable with a 1960s camera, the photographic experts are plainy talking through their arseholes

I assume then with the same kit, same film speed, grain, no photoshop, no pc help at all in fact you'll knock up your own unfathomable duplicate? (Lest ye be judged to be talking out of your nether region too).

I suspect you too are suggesting Mr Templeton was blind or a liar. Or that there are hulky women knocking about the meadows with heads that do that Exorcist thing.

If anyone out there ever sees anything genuinely fantastic, don't bother photograph it, for it'll never be accepted for what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top