the cumberland spaceman

[boyfromspace]

hi to all

this is my first post on the forum. i would be interested in your opinions on a strange case from the year i was born which became known as 'the cumberland spaceman.' this case has always intrigued me because of the connection from 'half way round the world'

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm

i suppose it has a tenuous connection with the subject matter of robert hastings' book: 'ufos and nukes' - the bluestreak rocket was being assembled at the facility at spadeadam, and then shipped to woomera in australia for its test flights.

<!-- google_ad_section_end --><!-- / message -->

 

[Siani]

Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with the image, but had never heard about alleged MIB visits and links with missiles.

 

[TClaeys]

I always thought this photograph was interesting. And I'm not saying it is fake in any way, but one question:

Does the spaceman remind anyone of a fencing uniform??

This thought just recently occurred to me, but it seems obvious enough. There are markings on the back of the uniform. Wonder if anyone could trace down a possible connection. I'm looking, but nothing so far.

 

[skunkape]

Does the spaceman remind anyone of a fencing uniform??

It appears to be a rear view of a bee-keeper.

 

[TheHelix]

Not trying to give an explanation here but -
Why is the "whole" photo of lower quality than the blown up "close up"? How is that possible?
And the colours are different, but they aren't different photos unless the girl's hair is sprayed solid. Looks windy and the hair is in exactly the same position.
"Cleaned up" or "doctored" photos make me suspicious.
Do Kodak really offer rewards for explanations for "anomalies"? Any independent confirmation of that?

So these must be the "aliens" who wear "space suits"? Heavens, there are a lot of different types!

 

[Gareth]

Not trying to give an explanation here but -
Why is the "whole" photo of lower quality than the blown up "close up"? How is that possible?
And the colours are different, but they aren't different photos unless the girl's hair is sprayed solid. Looks windy and the hair is in exactly the same position.
"Cleaned up" or "doctored" photos make me suspicious.
Do Kodak really offer rewards for explanations for "anomalies"? Any independent confirmation of that?

So these must be the "aliens" who wear "space suits"? Heavens, there are a lot of different types!

Its just had some simple processing done to make the image easier to analyse. But the whole thing seems absurd to me anyway.

I call hoax on the whole thing. The little space man dude looks ridiculous.

 

[TClaeys]

I call hoax on the whole thing. The little space man dude looks ridiculous.

Keep in mind though, that if we are to take any of the numerous humanoid encounters as real(and I'm not saying we should), then we would expect them to be ridiculous or at least highly bizarre.

Below is a link to some humanoid encounters(1965), and some of them even fit the bill of this one. I've often wondered about the reaches of this humanoid sighting theme. I'm not sure what to think, but there are a lot of reports for whatever that is worth. Reports with spacesuits, helmets, and other, seemingly out of place, attributes.

Personally I find the Gulf Breeze UFO photos to be utterly ridiculous. But I don't know that we can rule out the potential of something ridiculous just because it appears that way, or rather, IS that way.

http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1965.shtml

 

[TheHelix]

Its just had some simple processing done to make the image easier to analyse.

So you think it's quite acceptable to present "processed" images as evidence?

 

[Gareth]

So you think it's quite acceptable to present "processed" images as evidence?

If its just a matter of contrast enhancement or something similar, then yeah thats fine.

As long as present the original too.

 

[TheHelix]

If an altered image is presented then it should also state that it has been altered and exactly why, and how, with details of whatever process was used, otherwise it's useless as evidence of anything.

And it doesn't look like just simple contrast enhancement anyway. What happened to the "spotty" appearance of the original? The "close up" is way too clean.

 

[Gareth]

If an altered image is presented then it should also state that it has been altered and exactly why, and how, with details of whatever process was used, otherwise it's useless as evidence of anything.

yeah sure. As long as the original is also presented it should be apparent anyway. But if its not possible for the original to be there it should be clear what processing was done.