Alleged photos of aliens

[Trajanus]

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.

Just about all reported aliens have a broad resemblence to humans, and some are said to be quite human-like. And we can't see its face clearly, if at all. Also, this was far from the only instance of an odd or alien figure noticed only after the film was developed.

Its unexplained appearance in the photo is odd but I would not say that a paranormal explanation is the most likely one.

But it wasn't the only odd thing at the time. The father mentioned something creepy about the whole place that day--something unseen in the air.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

So a bee keeper is more implausible than a dude from another planet? The truth is, we don't know what it is. It can also be the nature of film. I remember getting all kinds of strange stuff in my pictures when I used to use film cameras.

Great "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" reference though - that brought a smile to my face.

Nobody is saying a beekeeper is more implausible than an extraterrestrial, but a super-stealthy ninja beekeeper that is visible only to cameras, could play center for the Pistons, fails to mention his presence on the marshlands that day to anyone in nearly 50 years, and whom cavorts around in full protective garb despite other people in the area somehow avoiding swarm massacre with no hazard gear at all IS.

 

[trainedobserver]

Everyone says its a tall figure. How would you determine the height?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Everyone says its a tall figure. How would you determine the height?

It totally looks tall, and it makes it more interesting. It also adds mystique to the story and a way to say that it makes it impossible to be "normal."

 

[Han]

Nobody is saying a beekeeper is more implausible than an extraterrestrial, but a super-stealthy ninja beekeeper that is visible only to cameras, could play center for the Pistons, fails to mention his presence on the marshlands that day to anyone in nearly 50 years, and whom cavorts around in full protective garb despite other people in the area somehow avoiding swift swarm massacre with no protection at all IS.

please read the following

"Bees can be successfully kept in populated areas. Many people keep bees in their back yards. Rooftop beekeeping is becoming increasingly popular in some larger cities."

"Take the time to educate your neighbors about the relatively gentle nature of honey bees. Remind them that foraging bees are only looking for potential food sources, and will not sting unless they feel threatened." ((source))(http://www.aragriculture.org/insects/bees/urban_beekeeping.htm)

In this case we are talking about a large area of marsh land(Burgh marsh). Additionaly most beekeepers have multiple apiaries(beehives) in multiple locations and would not usaully take off their protective clothing when traveling between different hives.

 

[justcurious]

Han, look at the picture. What good is a protective suit against bees if it sticks to the body like a pair of stockings ? And are you going to pop out a link to an article saying that most bee keepers in the area are member of the local body-building club ? Whatabout a pic of Schwarzenegger in a bee-suit ? That would solve the case.

 

[trainedobserver]

What good is a protective suit against bees if it sticks to the body like a pair of stockings ?

Well maybe it's last year's bee-suit. It's an interesting picture and it has nice story to go along with it that's for certain. It's difficult to speculate with any certainty about what the real story is behind it given the circumstances.

Ok, so ... are there any other contenders for "True enough Alien Photograph"?

 

[Han]

Han, look at the picture. What good is a protective suit against bees if it sticks to the body like a pair of stockings ? And are you going to pop out a link to an article saying that most bee keepers in the area are member of the local body-building club ? Whatabout a pic of Schwarzenegger in a bee-suit ? That would solve the case.

you made me laugh out loud

sorry but this is from another article "Bees don't like black, therefore bee suits are white. A bee can run an elephant off, because elephants have dark eyes and they will attack the eyes. The elephant will start running if bees are after its eyes. They tend to be more aggressive towards dark colors. People argue that you shouldn't wear red or yellow, because bees think you are a flower. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you are wearing black, you are inviting an attack than if you are wearing white. My bee boxes or beehives are traditionally white." ((source))(http://www.essortment.com/articles/bee-suits_6123.htm)

Also I did not say that it was a shop bought suit, but it could have been. lets say it was a home made version, the main requirement of the suit is to be thick enough to prevent the Bees sting penetrating to the skin. a cheap way to achieve this would be to wear multiple layers underneath a "white" outer layer thus giving the impression of a skin tight fit. you can test this at home: just put on all your jumpers(sweaters) underneath a large long sleeve T shirt and see how muscular you look

 

[The Pair of Cats]

you made me laugh out loud

sorry but this is from another article "Bees don't like black, therefore bee suits are white. A bee can run an elephant off, because elephants have dark eyes and they will attack the eyes. The elephant will start running if bees are after its eyes. They tend to be more aggressive towards dark colors. People argue that you shouldn't wear red or yellow, because bees think you are a flower. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you are wearing black, you are inviting an attack than if you are wearing white. My bee boxes or beehives are traditionally white." ((source))(http://www.essortment.com/articles/bee-suits_6123.htm)

Also I did not say that it was a shop bought suit, but it could have been. lets say it was a home made version, the main requirement of the suit is to be thick enough to prevent the Bees sting penetrating to the skin. a cheap way to achieve this would be to wear multiple layers underneath a "white" outer layer thus giving the impression of a skin tight fit. you can test this at home: just put on all your jumpers(sweaters) underneath a large long sleeve T shirt and see how muscular you look

The point is how someone wearing a white protective suit is going to go unnoticed by 4 or more people. Secondly, if there are bees in the area, what on earth is the child doing sitting on the ground where presumably the bees would be foraging? Not to mention the fact she is holding a bunch. Or was this semi visible super bee keeper ready to dash in and save the young girl from certain harm or injury.

 

[Han]

The point is how someone wearing a white protective suit is going to go unnoticed by 4 or more people. Secondly, if there are bees in the area, what on earth is the child doing sitting on the ground where presumably the bees would be foraging? Not to mention the fact she is holding a bunch. Or was this semi visible super bee keeper ready to dash in and save the young girl from certain harm or injury.

Look we are not talking about "KILLER BEES" we are talking "HONEY BEES" they are every where. they are the main pollinator of most comercial crops and wild flowers the suggestion that there are no bees is completely illogical especially when I have shown that there were active beekeepers at the time and place where the photo was taken.

also it is a distinct possiblity that the "beekeeper" was simply walking between hives and did not take off his suit as is quite normal practice.

I make it 5 people anyway: mr and mrs Templeton their daughter and two old ladys.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Regardless of what it is, can we all agree that it's not an alien, or a ghost, or something that has not been proven to exist? It could be a double exposure - film can do funny things and judging by the date it was taken, he wasn't using a Canon 5D Mark II. I say something funny with the film is to blame. Back then we got stuff like that, now we have to deal with orbs.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I make it 5 people anyway: mr and mrs Templeton their daughter and two old ladys.

Are you sure she was there? Because in the accounts I've read she isn't mentioned. But if she was that makes even another person the ninja beekeeper has to hide from.

Edit: You were correct about that after all. I've just read in Alien Contact: The First Fifty years by Jenny Randles that Templeton had his wife and 2 daughters with him. So apparently there wasn't 4 people there that day but 6. So now we have half a dozen sets of eyes that this alleged beekeeper had to evade.

I say something funny with the film is to blame. Back then we got stuff like that, now we have to deal with orbs.

Kodak tested for these things and they determined this was not the case. In fact, they offered free film for life to anyone who could solve the mystery. I don't know if that still stands or not.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

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.

This has got to be one of the funniest pictures I've ever seen, but that could be because I'm currently playing The Paracast drinking game.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Remember Angel--the option that is considered the most likely here is not just a spaceman but an invisible (to the human eye but not film) spaceman. See how much more plausible it is?

Lance

What's hilarious about you so-called "skeptics" is that you are wanting to believe in beekeepers with paranormal powers. If I have to choose between something paranormal with paranormal powers and beekeepers with paranormal powers the former is definitely the more prosaic choice.

This reminds me of an explanation in the Blue Book files. There is a radar/visual listed as explained as the planet Jupiter. Now I'm sure that the skeptical officer that arrived at that conclusion felt pretty good that he didn't have to type (gasp.) "unknown" but I feel that the public still deserves to be told about what radar system detected Jupiter on that day because that's some pretty damned spiffy radar! He went and replaced one extraordinary possibility, alien spacecraft, with an IMPOSSIBLE one, radar systems so technically advanced that they can detect Jupiter! Again, the former option here would have been the more prosaic choice because although it might be unlikely in the extreme that an alien spacecraft would come here it is possible. But radar systems at the time and even now are not so sophisticated as to be able to bounce radar waves off of Jupiter and then detect them when they return. In his excitement to reach a "down to earth" explanation he instead provided a much more extraordinary conclusion than any saucer nut had ever imagined. His theory transcended the paranormal, he elected to go nuclear in the form of full-blown impossibility! And that's what you folks are trying to do here with this beekeeper nonsense. Unlike ETs and ghosts and Bigfoot and other things under the umbrella of the paranormal and unknown we know what beekeepers can and cannot do. Beekeepers do not, can not, render themselves invisible to human beings. You show me six people without mental disorders or brain trauma or blindness who cannot spot a man in a bee suit in broad daylight and in an area that is featureless (No trees, no bushes, no houses, no anything. It's just a big empty nothingness like a desert but with grass.) and even when one of them had him in frame at one point and I'll show you the Easter Bunny. In fact, the Easter Bunny is probably pretty amused by the crazy stuff y'all believe in.

You guys would be better off just saying it's a hoax. At least that is possible.

 

[Han]

I am not saying its a hoax because I believe that mr Templeton is telling the truth when he says he cant explain why the figure appeared in his picture.
I just want to highlight the fact that there are more likely explanations than the figure being a "space man".
The idea that it was a "space man" seems to have originated from mr Templeton
"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." (James Templeton)

Also I would not put myself in the sceptic category because experiences of my own and others close to me, clearly demonstrate to me that we do not fully comprehend the "world" we exist in. Having said that in this case(solway spaceman) I would tend towards the view of the police that nothing out of the ordinary was captured in the photo, but this does not mean that mr Templeton is lying, in my opinion he just tried to explain what happened but got it wrong.


best wishes

 

[justcurious]

I am not saying its a hoax because I believe that mr Templeton is telling the truth when he says he cant explain why the figure appeared in his picture.
I just want to highlight the fact that there are more likely explanations than the figure being a "space man".

Anyway, bee keeper or what, there is the aborted launch to take into account too. It is not a little incident, as I posted above, there has been a MoD investigation into it and the film of the launch is missing. One last time, it is not just about the picture, there is a context. Also if you believe he is not lying about the picture, do you think he is lying about the "men in black" ?

Not long after his photograph appeared in the newspapers two strange men in bowler hats came to visit Jim at the fire station where he worked. When he asked where they were from, the men refused to say, replying that they were from Her Majesty's government and would not show identification. They asked Jim to show them where the photograph had been taken. He took time off work and the men drove him in their Jaguar back to Burgh Marsh, where Jim led them directly to the spot. One of the men asked, "This is where you saw the man then?" Jim replied, "No, excuse me, I didn't see anybody." The men abruptly thanked Jim and left in their car, leaving him stranded on the marsh.

For all I know he could be lying for both the invisible man and the "men in black". And you know what ? It would still not explain the launch scare, it's a serious security issue. I like this case not because it "proves" anything about invisible spacemen but because it is difficult to find an explanation that takes all the facts into account. The value of this picture is not in what it represents or not but in the fact that it revealed to us the launch case and the amazing coincidence that "spacemen" where seen through devices, the same day, at the only two places where the blue streak was developed, on two different continents! Because of it, Group Captain Tom Dalton-Morgan came forward with the UFO incident and "white being" on the security cameras story.

Now it is clear that we have reached a point where everyone has stated his point of view, no need to bicker. Anyone has another picture to propose ? Let continue this thread, it's fun.

 

[Trajanus]

It totally looks tall, and it makes it more interesting. It also adds mystique to the story and a way to say that it makes it impossible to be "normal."

It could be floating and possibly some kind of holographic projection.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

What's hilarious about you so-called "skeptics" is that you are wanting to believe in beekeepers with paranormal powers. If I have to choose between something paranormal with paranormal powers and beekeepers with paranormal powers the former is definitely the more prosaic choice.

This reminds me of an explanation in the Blue Book files. There is a radar/visual listed as explained as the planet Jupiter. Now I'm sure that the skeptical officer that arrived at that conclusion felt pretty good that he didn't have to type (gasp.) "unknown" but I feel that the public still deserves to be told about what radar system detected Jupiter on that day because that's some pretty damned spiffy radar! He went and replaced one extraordinary possibility, alien spacecraft, with an IMPOSSIBLE one, radar systems so technically advanced that they can detect Jupiter! Again, the former option here would have been the more prosaic choice because although it might be unlikely in the extreme that an alien spacecraft would come here it is possible. But radar systems at the time and even now are not so sophisticated as to be able to bounce radar waves off of Jupiter and then detect them when they return. In his excitement to reach a "down to earth" explanation he instead provided a much more extraordinary conclusion than any saucer nut had ever imagined. His theory transcended the paranormal, he elected to go nuclear in the form of full-blown impossibility! And that's what you folks are trying to do here with this beekeeper nonsense. Unlike ETs and ghosts and Bigfoot and other things under the umbrella of the paranormal and unknown we know what beekeepers can and cannot do. Beekeepers do not, can not, render themselves invisible to human beings. You show me six people without mental disorders or brain trauma or blindness who cannot spot a man in a bee suit in broad daylight and in an area that is featureless (No trees, no bushes, no houses, no anything. It's just a big empty nothingness like a desert but with grass.) and even when one of them had him in frame at one point and I'll show you the Easter Bunny. In fact, the Easter Bunny is probably pretty amused by the crazy stuff y'all believe in.

You guys would be better off just saying it's a hoax. At least that is possible.

Where did I say it was a paranormal beekeeper? If it is a beekeeper, he would not have been noticed by the family - that doesn't mean it's paranormal. You know how many things I find in pictures that I didn't notice when I took them? A lot - mainly because I take so many pictures. There's nothing paranormal about it, it just seems that way.

 

[hemi]

I am not saying its a hoax because I believe that mr Templeton is telling the truth when he says he cant explain why the figure appeared in his picture.
I just want to highlight the fact that there are more likely explanations than the figure being a "space man".
The idea that it was a "space man" seems to have originated from mr Templeton
"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." (James Templeton)

Also I would not put myself in the sceptic category because experiences of my own and others close to me, clearly demonstrate to me that we do not fully comprehend the "world" we exist in. Having said that in this case(solway spaceman) I would tend towards the view of the police that nothing out of the ordinary was captured in the photo, but this does not mean that mr Templeton is lying, in my opinion he just tried to explain what happened but got it wrong.


best wishes

I could not agree with you more.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Where did I say it was a paranormal beekeeper? If it is a beekeeper, he would not have been noticed by the family - that doesn't mean it's paranormal. You know how many things I find in pictures that I didn't notice when I took them? A lot - mainly because I take so many pictures. There's nothing paranormal about it, it just seems that way.

So you're saying you wouldn't have seen that guy standing directly in front of you in an open field? And you're also saying that in addition to you five other people would have missed him as well? Lol. :