Discussion in 'Ufology' started by Anonymous, Jul 24, 2001.
Which second photo was this, Cochise?
You can see the spaceman really clearly in that photo!
Despite the case being cleared up (as far as I'm concerned anyway) it does throw up some interesting side notes.
1) That there were some convincing stories that the local photo development lab had decided to play a practical joke for some seemingly plausible reasons.
2) That there were supposedly officials that took a great interest in the story.
Maybe this is just an example of how a good mystery generates and spreads its own memes.
Yes, that's the second photo to which I referred. It not only has the lady in it, again possibly unintentionally since there is only part of her, but also is again slightly on the tilt. Particularly noticeable both in this picture and the spaceman one is the cut of the dress around the lady's arm.
For me its 'case closed'.
Maybe ... Or else the mystery figure is Annie - the other, older daughter everyone conveniently fails to mention.
The Templetons had two daughters at the time, and Templeton's early descriptions of the outing repeatedly indicated both daughters were there that day.
(See post #255 from 2012).
Good point, but whether it's mum or big sis in the pale blue dress (which looks vaguely like a white spacesuit when overexposed) it surely knocks on the head the whole spaceman mythos.
I think the antigravity / 'floating' mechanism is also revealed...it's also known as an upper grass slope in the rear of a picture, giving the perspective effect of implicit giants or jetpacks.
I was aways fascinated by the audacious alienness of the picture, which we (in our era, with our tropes) translate into being extraterrestrial instead of being an over-contrasted chemical process colour photograph of Mum's elbow.
I could never reconcile that damned illogical limb. For me, that opposed articulation was too much of an illusion eliminator.
Yes, I think this is the key sticking point: I don't believe the Templetons were lying, but that doesn't mean that Jim accidentally photographed a spaceman or other mysterious figure, non-human or otherwise.
I tend to think they were not lying about the MIB-type visit either, but that's just based on instinct / intuition. I've a pretty good track record of spotting liars a mile off. Certainly it's hard to imagine how inventing the mystery could do Mr T* anything but harm.
I'm assuming neither of the daughters has ever come forward with their version of the events?
*No, not that one, fool!
For those new to this mystery, it's emplaned in post 289 on page 10 of this thread. Nothing sinister, just interesting. Also explained in this video:
Annie was there on the day and that was the reason Mrs Templeton was so adamant to me that it wasn't her in the shot in question. She said she was playing with her behind the camera actively to keep her out of shot at the point where Jim was trying to get a good image. The shot you see above is one of several where she said she was trying to stop her getting in the way. But she was pretty sure to me she never went behind or intruded into the shot in question.
Neither of the girls remembered anything particular about the day but were, of course, aware of the aftermath dimly.
As I have said before pretty obviously this never was a 'spaceman' and what the shot actually shows is really for me not that important as I have never considered it supernatural.
So - whilst I have reservations based on what the Templeton's told me repeatedly - I do see the possibility that she was the cause of the photo.
But the story for me here is the interest shown in it by (allegedly) the Ministry and the visit of the two men - which loosely we might term MIB.
It was that which caused me to get interested in this case enough to interview them at length, not the photo itself.
That interest - from whoever the visitors were - was fuelled by the photo and assumed links to the Blue Streak/Woomera launch. It really is fairly irrelevant that neither that link nor the status of the photo as paranormal are actually true.
That someone at the time thought it might be was what caused the visit and why I was so intrigued wanting to identify who the visitors were.
Whilst Nick Pope told me adamantly they could not be from the Ministry as visits on site never happened and so he insisted that they had to be rogue UFOlogists playacting or maybe just crackpots - I disagree.
I disagree because we KNOW he is wrong and the MoD did indeed visit witnesses in certain cases. Aside from all the other unproven cases where we just have the witnesses story but of the ones I have interviewed for my MIB book I am sure they were being honest - we have the two police officers - Alan Godfrey and Colin Perks - both of whom did not report visits to them by the MoD at the time because they both later told me they were asked not to under the Official Secrets Act which as police officers they had to sign.
Alan has now chosen to publicly reveal the story he told me in confidence years ago and which I verified via his sergeant (who was married to my cousin). And, whilst the Godfrey MoD file has gone AWOL like the Templeton one, the Perks file WAS released and does document that two men from the Ministry followed his sighting up and interviewed him on site and took away samples of a glassy material found beneath where he saw the UFO on the night. No analysis of that material was released.
So I am sure the two men did visit Jim Templeton and, despite Nick Pope's view, not convinced they could not have been from the MoD.
nick redfern wrote several books in this subject, dint he?
I agree with posts above on the subject of 'Men from the Ministry'. That's far more interesting than the photo itself. The notion that somebody absolutely was taking it seriously. Because while the photo itself likely was just a passer by (or similar) caught in the back of a photograph at the wrong/right moment that suggests that, regardless, somebody believed that that image bore a striking enough resemblance to some other genuinely recorded phenomena to warrant further official investigation.
That's a far more intriguing thing to know.
After all the discussion it does seem fairly obvious this was either Mrs Templeton or the sister....but I can't imagine how the Templeton's didn't realize this themselves all those years ago. It's hard to imagine they actually believed it was something weird.
Yet, this explanation falls short of the fact that it implies the notion that the woman was on tilts, on a (non-existant) mound or ascending slope, levitating... The laws of geometry, perspective and human morphology don't allow us a choice, they discount the explanation. You've stated once that we could see the same effect on your avatar, but in fact it would refutate this lead. The figure emerging in the background, filmed from a higher height, is clearly lower than the figure on the foreground. Moreover, the woman must've been at a greater distance, making even more impossible (if this has a sense) that it was an unnoticed Mrs Templeton. In fact, attempts at reconstructing the human being supposedly at the origin of the picture have produced comical results.
So, relating to this lead, I would say Dead end. Even the explanation by a bird 'frozen' by the photograph, although really unlikely, has more plausibility. In addition, while I can discern, with really a good amount of will to believe, a slight likeness of the mysterious figure with Mrs Templeton's dress , it lies in the eye of the beholder. Seeing Mrs Templeton uncannily whitened as well as a spaceman in the figure is in both cases a matter of pareidolia.
There's nothing wrong with the angles. It's what happens with that type of camera if it is tilted, and it clearly was if the (verbal) evidence to the effect that the surrounding land was flat is to be believed. The fuzziness is due to the camera being used with settings for a limited depth of field, as you do if taking a portrait .
I'm dead against superficial 'nothing to see here' explanations of the abnormal, too often it results (IMHO) in the possibility of real but rare things being ignored but in this one case I'm convinced.
They were both absolutely adamant that it was not fabricated by them. This was what annoyed Jim more than anything because he was an official photographer working with the police on fire scene cases and, whilst he did have a bit of a history of creating trick photos (he showed me some) he made clear that there was absolutely nothing fake about this.
For a long time I assumed the most likely answer was that someone tricked him via a double exposure set up after the fact. Though Kodak supposedly felt it was definitely not a double exposure. Likely they were going to confess but then Jim - wary of the hoax idea settling on him and putting his work with the police in jeopardy - called the police in and asked them to investigate.
That would have wrong footed any joker and could well have seen them not confess in the way they had planned in case they were now charged by the police. Something they would never expect.
Whilst that still must be a possibility what really matters is that Jim's desire to prove his integrity to the police at the time likely saw him focus almost entirely on the hoax possibility. When I raised the issue of his other daughter or wife getting into the shot with them I got the impression it did not exactly catch them on the hop and was not something they had never considered, but that it clearly had not been a primary focus of their thinking at the time. Which I am sure was on the figure being someone in a suit (they talked about a fire suit as wore by those at Chapel Cross and did consider some kind of freak mirage from there as the weather that day was said by both of them to be 'unusual').
They both insisted they were aware of their whereabouts at the time of shot and it was not any of them because at the point where he was taking the best shots they were conscious of not getting in the way. But you cannot argue that this was not a possibility, though really that's all it is. The other shots show the potential. But, of course, also show his wife clearly recognisable even though angle and lighting of Elizabeth seem similar.
So I buy the solution as an option. But so is a hoax on him by someone who tampered with the film afterwards. Neither are perfect explanations but it really matters little as one of them seems sure to be correct as it clearly is not a paranormal event.
It is one of those cases that will be talked about in the next century and will likely only get resolved when someone builds a time machine, travels back in time to watch what happens.....
.....and accidentally gets into the shot and causes the very thing they went back to investigate.
annnnnndddddd.... i think we have the explanation right here
freaking time travelers
Whilst I don't think that this is being suggested by @Jayceedove as a literal solution to the Cumberland case (I'm sold on the simple overbleached mum explanation, but baffled by the visit(s) by members of Officialdom) I've often felt that the concept of non-extraterrestrial origins for at least some of mankind's curious visitations deserves a much-closer examination.
I'm amazed by the confident audacity of the time-travel hypothesis implicit within the overall Knight-Butler 'Who Built the Moon' proposition. Whilst I struggle to believe this suggestion (along with much else in the universe, I confess) no-one can say with absolute certainty that long-distant future technologies will not be able to view (or visit) the past that is our present.
I've always favoured the Wellsian perspective on postulated time-travel, and that is that if it works, it can just be damn-well got on with. No deflections and confusions regarding timeline paradoxes or causal loops (Bradbury's butterfly has much to answer for).
In which case, Marty's Mutated Morlocks may indeed be clumsily-visiting us, from far beyond the year 802,701 BCE
(ps did I post previously about a curious incident supposedly occuring in the 1500s/1600s, in the Tower of London? A long-duration bright light appearing above or near the Crown Jewels....was this confirmed as being part of a sci-fi short story, or was it a reported actual experience?)
Actual reported experience. A pale cylinder of light appeared before the Tower's keeper and his wife in 1817. In 1954 a 'vague, glowing fog' was reported in the Tower's courtyard.
Ghosts of London: The East End City and North, JA Brooks. (Jarrold Colour Publications 1982)
I thought there was also a Tudor-era incident (unless that was a fictional addendum?). (Blessed be, immutable history, and easily-discernable fable...as if)
I don't know, I'm just copying from the notes in the back of Alan Moore's From Hell.
i was just jpking but yeah ufos are likely an interdimensional phenomena
also could you tell me about this story of the crown jewels?
oh i remenber this one!
dint the light have an drinking glass shape? and had strange glowing "fluids" inside it?
Again, I don't know as I'm just quoting a second hand source. Any members have a copy of this book?
It's on Amazon. 68p!
Amazon Link To Book.
i remenber seeing it in an website actually
The Tower's light cylinder makes me think it was a form of ball lightning. I know that's explaining one mystery with another, but aside from the shape it fits the pattern.
i have never seen other reports of cilindrical ball lightining
As David Plankton remembers I think it was in the 19th Century and occurred in their rooms / apartment / flat / whatever it would have been called at the time - where they lived on-site, as it were. I loved this story when I came across it aged about ten in some anthology of Fortean happenings: it was easily fifty times wierder than any number of grey ladies or spacemen warning farmers about the downside of global thermonuclear destruction.
Funnily enough I was trying to locate the book tonight as the incident had come to mind for some reason while I was having a cuppa - to no avail *sad face*
Edit: if memory serves it was a levitating cylinder of shifting luminous colours like a kind of ectoplasmic lava lamp
Aetheric alignment. Morphic resonance, across the miles. And tuned-in to the zeitgeist, you somehow heard the call, that was enough.
Separate names with a comma.