Alleged photos of aliens

[Angel of Ioren]

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. :

You never know - isn't that more possible than some of what people in this thread are positing? I would have been concentrating on the child I was taking a picture of, as would the other people. It's really easy to miss something in plain sight. Just ask any magician.

 

[Trajanus]

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. :

Right, I don't see how Templeton could've missed it. It was in the same line of sight as his subject or daughter, and was conspicuously white. And spotting an alien, on film, which wasn't originally noticed, is by no means unique to this case.

 

[dyingsun]

Right, I don't see how Templeton could've missed it. It was in the same line of sight as his subject or daughter, and was conspicuously white. And spotting an alien, on film, which wasn't originally noticed, is by no means unique to this case.

I would love if this photograph was genuine in the sense of showing something anomalous, I am by no means a photo expert , but this one..I hate to repeat myself, but it is the back of a 'Garden Jockey'.

 

[Hotkafka]

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.

Please do us a favor by posting some of your anomalous photos. I would be interested to see the frame of reference you are using to leverage this interpretation. Are there any instances of unexplained figures in your vast catalog of photographs?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Please do us a favor by posting some of your anomalous photos. I would be interested to see the frame of reference you are using to leverage this interpretation. Are there any instances of unexplained figures in your vast catalog of photographs?

To a degree I get what he's saying but I think it's an extremely weak argument when it comes to this photograph. It's one thing to take a picture on a city street where you've got buildings, cars, street lamps, bushes, trees, pedestrians, and a kzillion other things diverting your attention and then finding something on the picture you didn't see at the time. But Templeton took this photograph in an environment that was barren. It's a giant open field with absolutely nothing around. And the figure is large, dressed in a ridiculous outfit, and is immediately behind the person he is photographing. There's just no way he could have missed it and even if by some bizarre once-in-a-lifetime miracle he did one of the other people there would have seen him.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

To a degree I get what he's saying but I think it's an extremely weak argument when it comes to this photograph. It's one thing to take a picture on a city street where you've got buildings, cars, street lamps, bushes, trees, pedestrians, and a kzillion other things diverting your attention and then finding something on the picture you didn't see at the time. But Templeton took this photograph in an environment that was barren. It's a giant open field with absolutely nothing around. And the figure is large, dressed in a ridiculous outfit, and is immediately behind the person he is photographing. There's just no way he could have missed it and even if by some bizarre once-in-a-lifetime miracle he did one of the other people there would have seen him.

I agree with you there Wickerman. I know that the film was checked by Kodak and stuff, but I can't help but feel that something went wonky with the film.
With regards to the pictures I've taken - nothing unexplainable appeared. It's just that I took a picture and there was something I didn't notice when I was taking it - say I see a squirrel in the background that I didn't notice. Or of course, those silly orbs.

 

[Hotkafka]

I agree with you there Wickerman. I know that the film was checked by Kodak and stuff, but I can't help but feel that something went wonky with the film.
With regards to the pictures I've taken - nothing unexplainable appeared. It's just that I took a picture and there was something I didn't notice when I was taking it - say I see a squirrel in the background that I didn't notice. Or of course, those silly orbs.

I certainly would agree with you that there exists the possibility of overlooking certain objects in a given photographic scenario. However, applying that possibility in this photo seems highly improbable, especially when looking at the placement of this particular anomaly, i.e. the fact that it is framed dead center behind the object of focus. Kind of hard to overlook an object that is directly in the line of sight of which you are focusing on. I guess, what I am saying is that this interpretation of simply overlooking an object is not a particularly creative attempt to debunk this anomaly. Equally implausible is leaning on a camera malfunction -which demands that the malfunction produce a suspiciously looking human figure in equally suspicious garb, i.e. instead of the more likely light swath or void of darkness, etc.

 

[SLVA]

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.

Good thread. It will always be a bit of a freaky case for me and the photo memorable because it's the first thing I saw to do with the subject as a kid in a book round at a friends house. I remember thinking back then how weird would you have to be to hoax this with your daughter in it. Then all the stuff about Blue Flash (?) does anyone have more info about what that launch was for exactly and the connection with Cumberland manufacturer? Whatever it's an iconic image because it got me thinking about this stuff age about 9 lol!

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Good thread. It will always be a bit of a freaky case for me and the photo memorable because it's the first thing I saw to do with the subject as a kid in a book round at a friends house. I remember thinking back then how weird would you have to be to hoax this with your daughter in it. Then all the stuff about Blue Flash (?) does anyone have more info about what that launch was for exactly and the connection with Cumberland manufacturer? Whatever it's an iconic image because it got me thinking about this stuff age about 9 lol!

The sad (Damning?) thing is that despite my being interested in this subject for nearly 20 years this is the only alleged/suspected alien entity picture I know of that I find to be compelling. All of the rest are either not terribly convincing or seem like obvious frauds. Seems kind of out of proportion. We've got a kzillion and a half UFO images (And most of them aren't very good either.) but even moderately interesting pictures/videos of beings are incredibly rare.

 

[justcurious]

Then all the stuff about Blue Flash (?) does anyone have more info about what that launch was for exactly and the connection with Cumberland manufacturer?

The incident seems to be vaguely mentioned in the "Flight trial of F1 - 5th June, 1961," report by Officer in Scientific Charge H.G.R. Robinson:

During the period immediately prior to 25th May outstanding problems concerning range safety and instrumental coverage were resolved with the Range Authorities.

The report also lists a long series of various technical incidents with the several subsequent Blue Streak missiles test launches. Obviously no Blue Streak was launched on May 23, 1964 or before the first launch on June 5, 1964.

Dr John Becklake, The Science Museum:

"The concept and the size and the power of Blue Streak was almost equal to anything else in the world. It was equivalent to the Atlas missile which America was developing. I mean the technology came from America, it's true, but the development which went on in Britain and the actual Blue Streak itself with a thrust of about 140 tons, was about equal to anything in the world. It wasn't as powerful as some of the Russians', but it was in the first division if you like."

Professor Ian Smith, Chief Performance Engineer 1960-1964 :

"Well the news that Blue Streak was cancelled as a weapon [13th April 1960] came to us as we, the whole team, including our Chief Engineer, were travelling to the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham to make a presentation on Blue Streak as a weapon. There was no intimation given by the Government to Rolls Royce or De Havilland even twenty four hours before. And it came as a complete shock. I remember that day very vividly [...]"

After the cancellation as a weapon, Blue Streak missiles - or more accurately, rockets - were the backbone of the ELDO project, a European space initiative by the U-K. The Blue Streak rocket was transported by ship from Spadeadam, U-K, to Woomera, Australia. The tests had many small incidents, but overall they were remarkably successful. The rocket by then was more known as "Europa" than "Blue Streak," and the 5 June launch was a European project: U-K provided everything but the upper stages of the rocket which were German and French. Nevertheless, in 1968, the U-K Government abandoned its civilian rocket program. <!--footer-->

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

It just morphed into the British Aerospace Industry which let the cat out of the bag regarding its 'size and budget' only this year!