Alleged photos of aliens

[trainedobserver]

Listening to Open Minds Radio Apr 03, 2010 Dr. Ruth McKinley-Hover, Alien Abduction today I was shocked to hear McKinley-Hover say that Bob Dean and Whitley Strieber had made their way into Area51 and taken a picture of an alien! No really! She said that at around the 18:40 second mark. The host just let her statement pass without a comment!

The photo she is talking about is the photo on the cover of Exempt from Disclosure which was also used in "UFOs: Fifty Years of Denial", by James Fox.

Ruth presents herself as a seasoned experienced researcher, yet it only took me less than 15 seconds to discover that photo is of a prop used in the movie Intruders (1992). See forgetomori for more information on this photo. She also goes on about how aliens are sending us messages in Crop Circles which causes me to doubt her investigative abilities even further.

I've been listening to various paranormal podcasts on iTunes and the level of B.S. is just incredible. Certainly the Paracast and Dark Matters are far above most of these shows in content and production values.

Here is a question for all the contactee/abductee/experiencers in the forum who say they have seen aliens up close and personal, "Are there any photos on the Internet that you would say are of actual alien beings or close enough that you can't tell?"

 

[paraschtick]

Listening to Open Minds Radio Apr 03, 2010 Dr. Ruth McKinley-Hover, Alien Abduction today I was shocked to hear McKinley-Hover say that Bob Dean and Whitley Strieber had made their way into Area51 and taken a picture of an alien! No really! She said that at around the 18:40 second mark. The host just let her statement pass without a comment!
...
Here is a question for all the contactee/abductee/experiencers in the forum who say they have seen aliens up close and personal, "Are there any photos on the Internet that you would say are of actual alien beings or close enough that you can't tell?"

Open Minds is associated with Project Camelot, and I think most thinking people would agree that what they "believe in" is mostly disinfo or fantasy. But yeah I agree with you about the podcasts out there. I used to listen to a hell of a lot of "paranormal" podcasts but now hardly listen to any. Most of the guests (and interviewers) are cranks or fraudsters or just deluded.

I can't say for sure there really are any pictures of real aliens out there. There have been a few reasonable looking hoaxes but none that in the end prove not to be from a film or some sort of exhibition. To tell you the truth at the moment I'm not entirely even certain that there are aliens of any kind.

The only truly truly strange (and possible) alien picture/video so far I have seen on the nets (bit clumsy but I think you know what I mean ) is the Nellis Range video that Sightings had on it in the mid '90s. I think I started a thread on it a few years back (when I was still "schticknz"). But you probably know what I mean anyway. As far as I know that has never been debunked, and still ranks for me as being at the top of my truly strange-wierd-ometer.

But someone may be able to provide other examples of other possible alien pics??

[Does the cumberland spaceman pic count?? It still gives me the heebie-jeebies to this day :]

 

[Sean Elifritz]

About the only entity photo I can think of that I find to be interesting is of the "Cumberland Spaceman" as it's come to be known:

And well, it doesn't even really look like an alien. I'm not sure what the hell it's suppose to be. Kinda' looks like a giant, floating, astronaut with its head on backwards. And if you look closely you'll see that the "visor" isn't flat or simply curved, rather it seems to be conical. Both the picture and the story that goes with it are pretty bizarre.

 

[paraschtick]

About the only entity photo I can think of that I find to be interesting is of the "Cumberland Spaceman" as it's come to be known:
...
And well, it doesn't even really look like an alien. I'm not sure what the hell it's suppose to be. Kinda' looks like a giant, floating, astronaut with its head on backwards. And if you look closely you'll see that the "visor" isn't flat or simply curved, rather it seems to be conical. Both the picture and the story that goes with it are pretty bizarre.

Nooooo ... I think I may have mentioned it in my reply to the original post ... but yeah it is still a pretty bizarre tale, and the pic still gives me the willies. There is something so strange about it. It always makes me feel a bit uneasy. I'm sure its been mentioned more than a few times here. I seem to remember almost an entire thread about it some years ago in this here place. Maybe its a fake maybe it isn't. But it just shows how the power of a photo can unsettle you. Well ... it unsettles me anyway ... but then again I am special

 

[Kandinsky]

I've read God knows how many people assert that this is a fake or hoax. It might be, we can't know. Guys insist it's a kid's toy behind her head, a skinhead man walking past, a sunbather, an inflatable spaceman! I agree with you, it looks weird and unusual. I've looked at it so many times since being a little kid myself, it never fails to look odd. There's also the back story about the missile launch in Australia that was interrupted the same time by a figure near the launch site that looked like the thing in the photo. Either way, it's a good story and good photo.

You might have seen this one of an 'alien entity.'


It's the Ilkley Moor abduction critter...close-up and colorised...Ilkley Moor, Full Size Images, UFO Casebook files I wouldn't normally link to this site, but the account is detailed and clear...THE UFO CASEBOOK-1987-The Ilkley Moor Alien,

As far as I know it hasn't been debunked and the surrounding details don't have all the tell-tale signs of hoaxery. One thing I'm curious about is something Jenny Randles said about 5 years ago. She said

While the witness has stood by his story for years, there are nagging doubts that have recently grown.

I mean Jenny! How can you come out with something so intriguing and not add any more info? It's one of those rare 'abduction' tales that doesn't make me shout BS at the screen and yet she's possibly in the know about it being a hoax. Dammit!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

About the only entity photo I can think of that I find to be interesting is of the "Cumberland Spaceman" as it's come to be known:

And well, it doesn't even really look like an alien. I'm not sure what the hell it's suppose to be. Kinda' looks like a giant, floating, astronaut with its head on backwards. And if you look closely you'll see that the "visor" isn't flat or simply curved, rather it seems to be conical. Both the picture and the story that goes with it are pretty bizarre.

People - she obviously has some sort of horrible growth coming out of her head. Poor child.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

It is creepy and more like BS. The jump suit figure has a snout face of some sorts.

 

[trainedobserver]

It is creepy and more like BS. The jump suit figure has a snout face of some sorts.

It looks like the arm is bent the wrong way for the figure to be facing the camera, yet as you say it appears to be a head with a snout or a face plate of some kind facing us. It appears to be a toy of some kind to me placed strategically on the hillside.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

It looks like the arm is bent the wrong way for the figure to be facing the camera, yet as you say it appears to be a head with a snout or a face plate of some kind facing us. It appears to be a toy of some kind to me placed strategically on the hillside.

Yeah, that's always peoples' first reaction to it, that it's just a toy behind her head. But it looks to me like it is blurred in such a way as to be further away from the camera than she is. Kodak analyzed it and they couldn't find an explanation. Seems to me that if it were just a small object behind her they would have speculated such. And I don't know, the girl looks like she is posing for a regular photograph and not like somebody with a giant action figure glued to the back of her head. Then you've got the story of personnel at some rocket base saying they saw similar looking figures on security cameras at the base and stopped a launch because of it.

And the figure is pretty strange. Its arm is bent in such a way as to suggest it is looking away from the camera. But the head makes you feel it is looking forward because of the visor. Perhaps the visor runs all the way around the helmet and it really is looking away.

But anyway, I'm not claiming I feel certain it is real. At the end of the day it really could be that dad forced his daughter to pose with a fake alien figurine behind her head (Never mind the fact that doing so would cause her to be asked about it at school and for the rest of her life. I've personally never heard anything about her saying the picture is a fake.). But with the corroborating story from the missile base I think there is a chance that this one is genuinely mysterious.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

One other note, I've spent the last few minutes browsing skeptical pieces about it and even the skeptics seem to be admitting it is impossible to be a small object because of the blurring. They seem to be going with the explanation that it is someone in the background that the photographer simply didn't notice wearing a blouson jacket or whatever with a hood.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------

A bit more about it.

 

[trainedobserver]

The closeup in the video seems to show the figure standing with its back to us. It is wearing a skin tight white top that clings tightly to the arms and back. There appears to be a small hood attached to the back. The head is a bit indistinct but I think we are seeing the back of the figures head covered by a cap or helmet of some kind. The dark area on the head is not a face but either hair or part of the design of the helmet. I think it more likely a cap of some kind with ear flaps.

I think it is a strange thing but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is an alien. It appears to be a human being. Its unexplained appearance in the photo is odd but I would not say that a paranormal explanation is the most likely one.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

The closeup in the video seems to show the figure standing with its back to us. It is wearing a skin tight white top that clings tightly to the arms and back. There appears to be a small hood attached to the back. The head is a bit indistinct but I think we are seeing the back of the figures head covered by a cap or helmet of some kind. The dark area on the head is not a face but either hair or part of the design of the helmet. I think it more likely a cap of some kind with ear flaps.

I think it is a strange thing but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is an alien. It appears to be a human being. Its unexplained appearance in the photo is odd but I would not say that a paranormal explanation is the most likely one.

Yeah, it's funny but despite the blurriness of youtube videos I think it looks better in the video than it does on any of the pics I've been able to find on the net. Obviously the original was quite a bit more sharp than what is available online. Too bad someone won't provide a decent scan of it.

 

[Han]

My grandfather used to keep bees, and had a protective suit like this

It is my belief that the figure in the picture is a beekeeper facing away from the girl.
here are my reasons

(1) Location Carlisle has had an active beekeeping association since 1931*

(2) Time firstly it was in may(a very busy time for beekeepers** secondly it was sunday***

(3) Image look at points A and B in the edited image below


A looks very simular to the protective neck guard on the back of a beekeepers suit
B Due to the angle of the elbow the figure must be facing away from the camera

*((source))(http://www.cumbriabeekeepers.co.uk/carlisle/carlisle_home.htm)

**
"MAY The flowers of May bring an increase in brood rearing. Queens should not be left short of brood-rearing space. In a congested brood area room can be made by rearranging combs to bring good, empty, drawn comb into the brood rearing area.
In some distracts, supers, with queen excluder under, can be need in the first quarter of the month. Keep your eye on the flowering. Strong stocks can gather a surplus from OSR – this needs special treatment, remove as soon as possible – and sycamore.
Now is the time to activate your swarm control dispositions. The artificial swarm as a means of varroa management can now be applied to advantage."((source))(http://www.honeybeekeeping.co.uk/cms/articles/a-beekeepers-year/)


*** Sunday In the past more so than now was a day off. So if you kept bees but had a full time job Sunday would be an ideal time to tend them.

I forgot to say look at the bunch of wild flowers she has collected and there are some visable ones in the background meaning that it was ideal habitat for Bees

best wishes

 

[trainedobserver]

Too bad someone won't provide a decent scan of it.

The negative would be nice. When I see things like this I immediately wonder who developed it. I once took some photos of a hubcap thrown up against the sky. Only one photo actually looked worth a damn and on this one photo whoever developed the photos had placed a bright red light on the "dome" of the "flying saucer." I'm just saying there are lot of things that should be taken into account, one of which is the individual who developed the photo.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 AM ----------

It is my belief that the figure in the picture is a beekeeper facing away from the girl. here are my reasons

Excellent! I agree that this seems the most likely explanation for this photograph. This explains the appearance of the head quite well. The hat with a mesh that encompasses the entire head.

BeeeeeKeeeepeeerrss from Spaaaaaze!

 

[Sean Elifritz]

My grandfather used to keep bees, and had a protective suit like this

It is my belief that the figure in the picture is a beekeeper facing away from the girl.
here are my reasons

(1) Location Carlisle has had an active beekeeping association since 1931*

(2) Time firstly it was in may(a very busy time for beekeepers** secondly it was sunday***

(3) Image look at points A and B in the edited image below


A looks very simular to the protective neck guard on the back of a beekeepers suit
B Due to the angle of the elbow the figure must be facing away from the camera

*((source))(http://www.cumbriabeekeepers.co.uk/carlisle/carlisle_home.htm)

**
"MAY The flowers of May bring an increase in brood rearing. Queens should not be left short of brood-rearing space. In a congested brood area room can be made by rearranging combs to bring good, empty, drawn comb into the brood rearing area.
In some distracts, supers, with queen excluder under, can be need in the first quarter of the month. Keep your eye on the flowering. Strong stocks can gather a surplus from OSR – this needs special treatment, remove as soon as possible – and sycamore.
Now is the time to activate your swarm control dispositions. The artificial swarm as a means of varroa management can now be applied to advantage."((source))(http://www.honeybeekeeping.co.uk/cms/articles/a-beekeepers-year/)


*** Sunday In the past more so than now was a day off. So if you kept bees but had a full time job Sunday would be an ideal time to tend them.

I forgot to say look at the bunch of wild flowers she has collected and there are some visable ones in the background meaning that it was ideal habitat for Bees

best wishes

Yeah, the bee suit looks similar but I think that begs the question of why this beekeeper doesn't show up in any of the other photographs? Also, why was he not seen by the photographer or anyone else? And exactly why is he standing at an angle despite the ground looking quite flat? It seems to me that a beekeeper walking around a large clearing in full garb would have garnered quite a bit of attention.

 

[trainedobserver]

Yeah, the bee suit looks similar but I think that begs the question of why this beekeeper doesn't show up in any of the other photographs? Also, why was he not seen by the photographer or anyone else? And exactly why is he standing at an angle despite the ground looking quite flat? It seems to me that a beekeeper walking around a large clearing in full garb would have garnered quite a bit of attention.

Well there are prosaic explanations for all of that. He wasn't in the photos because he moved or the photographer moved. The family didn't notice him because they were preoccupied with their daughter. The angle of the arm suggests he is in the process of doing something so his legs could be bent also. It does seem like he would get some attention but the lack of it isn't paranormal. It looks like a human in a bee suit. To leap to the conclusion that it is a photo of an otherwise invisible alien is a huge leap to make.

 

[justcurious]

Obviously the original was quite a bit more sharp than what is available online. Too bad someone won't provide a decent scan of it.

Better scan:

Aliens collect honey, so what ? That doesn't mean they don't exist.
​

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Well there are prosaic explanations for all of that. He wasn't in the photos because he moved or the photographer moved. The family didn't notice him because they were preoccupied with their daughter. The angle of the arm suggests he is in the process of doing something so his legs could be bent also. It does seem like he would get some attention but the lack of it isn't paranormal. It looks like a human in a bee suit. To leap to the conclusion that it is a photo of an otherwise invisible alien is a huge leap to make.

I fail to see how a phantom 7-8 foot tall beekeeper out in the middle of a clearing with no trees or anything else around to distract one's attention yet somehow goes unseen by everyone (Other people were there and they say there was nobody around to account for what is in the photograph.) somehow equates to a workable prosaic explanation...but OK. I never said the photo is of an alien, just that it is mysterious. A hypothesis about giant and stealthy beekeepers doesn't change my opinion about that.

 

[justcurious]

It is indeed a good story.

Photographer Comments On Cumberland Spaceman Picture

As an amateur photographer on a day-trip with my family, I took the photograph on Burgh Marsh on May 23, 1964, using an SLR camera loaded with the new Kodacolor film which was processed by Kodak.
I took three pictures of my daughter Elizabeth in a similar pose - and was shocked when the middle picture came back from Kodak displaying what looks like a spaceman in the background.
I took the picture to the police in Carlisle who, after many doubts, examined it and stated there was nothing suspicious about it.
The local newspaper, the Cumberland News, picked up the story and within hours it was all over the world. The picture is certainly not a fake, and I am as bemused as anyone else as to how this image appeared in the background.
Over the four decades the photo has been in the public domain, I have had many thousands of letters from all over the world with various ideas or possibilities - most of which make little sense to me. It should also be noted that I have received no payment for taking this picture.
The only suggestion that struck a chord with me was a letter from Woomera in Australia which came a month after the picture was shown around the world. The people there were keen to see a good colour copy of the photo, as they had stopped a countdown of the Blue Streak rocket within hours of my photo being taken. Apparently, two similar looking 'spacemen' had been seen close to the rocket.
Only later did I find out that part of the Blue Streak rocket was made and tested within sight of Burgh Marsh.

James Templeton
Carlisle
Cumbria
England
(Daily Mail, London, England, on December 13, 2002)

The case was reported to the police and taken up by Kodak, the film manufacturers, who offered free film for life to anyone who could solve the mystery when their experts failed. Kodak had investigated Jim Templeton's film and tested it for all known photographic faults and tampering. They believed the image to be genuine, so they decided to offer a reward to anyone who could explain the mysterious photograph. It has not been claimed. It was not, as the police at first guessed, a simple double exposure with one negative accidentally printed on top of another during processing. It was, as Chief Superintendent Oldcorn quickly concluded, just "one of those things... a freak picture."

 

[trainedobserver]

Hypothesis about giant and stealthy beekeepers don't change my opinion about that.

I'm just offering the most likely explanations. Certainly those were more likely than some mysterious and otherwise invisible person appearing in the photo. It looks like a human being wearing a white beekeeper complete with headgear. I looked at numerous beekeeper outfits a moment ago and it really strengthens that impression.

I'm not an expert but I don't think there is enough information about the positions of the photographer, the girl, and the hill to make any real judgment on how tall the figure actually was. The fact that no one claims to have noticed him doesn't really amount to much IMHO.

 

[dyingsun]

It is the back of a 'lawn jockey' in that picture, or at least I am fairly convinced it is. lawn jockey - Google-Suche