hi, very new to this . so bear with me. my parents were married in gretna green scotland. 1963.
they posed for photos at a rural location. dry stonewalls ,farm gate etc. may have been taken by 3rd person. do not know.
on a timer on car roof?. any way, years later when i was a lad mum let us look at old photos. and in the three of those taken in scotland, there in the back ground,
was the images of an 8ft space suited man. as if walking in and out of the shots. over the years they became a distant memory. about 7-8yrs ago, there was a program on tv (hosted by nick pope i think) all about ufos and such like. well in the show they featured a couple of photos of an 8ft spaceman, at a rocket testing site, in australia.
as soon as the program ended, my big sis phones me all excited."did you see the 8ft spaceman photos?". blah blah blah. yep i say, and they still exist today.
one problem though. we are all estranged from our mum . so untill she passes away, they will stay in her loft, boxed up!.
THEY DO EXIST, AND I WILL GLADLY SHOW THE WORLD. BUT WE WILL ALL HAVE TO BE PATIENT.
i have told mates of them, yep i'm now the nutter!

interesting, what did the spaceman look like?

Don't say that your not crazy. I believe you saw something. I can't wait to see the pics of the space dude. But it's ok I can wait.

[Sounds to me like your parents came across the so called 'Cumberland Spaceman'.
Another photo exists that was taken in May 1964 by a guy called James Templeton who photographed his daughter whilst out on the marshes 8 miles north of Carlisle, which puts it in the same vicinity as Gretna Green.
Incidently, the same day he was on the marshes, on the other side of the world in Woomara missile launching site, Australia, a missile launch was aborted due to two unknown spacemen in the vicinity of the missile.
These spacemen apparently looked very similair to the cumberland spaceman photographed by Jim Templeton. (The film footage of the woomara spacemen had apparently gone missing, but records of the incident are kept at Kew Gardens, London, which backs up the incident in Australia).
The strange connection lies in the 'Blue Streak Rocket' which was being launched at Woomara. This rocket was being manufactured at a facility on Burgh Marsh, the same location Jim Templeton took his famous photo.

i hope you all can get back on good terms with your mother , for reasons other than just the photos.

I've seen the photo. I wonder if I can find it. I'll look for it and post it here.

Here it is. Just click on the link.

http://www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk/imag...images/mib2.jpg

I wonder where his spacecraft is?

here's a full image.

http://ufocasebook.com/solwayfirth.jpg

here's a site that gives information on the picture.

http://www.geocities.com/theysawthem/the_cumberland_man.html

Thanks for the pics miracle. Time to sell them on eBay... lol just kidding.

pain your hilarous.

I've never heard of the other "spaceman" incidents other than the cumberland one. I do not doubt that you actually caught something on camera, either.

so we have to wait for your mother to pass away to see the picture?



the picture looks kind of fake to me i mean cmon wouldnt the guy taking the picture see the 'spaceman' and either A] run away in terror B]say hi and try to communicate C]ask him to get out of the picture
and it looks like he was just randomly standing there

Presumably the only reason somebody refered to the pic as a spaceman is because it looks like whowever it is, is wearing a helmet.
If you look at the bend in the arm, the person obviously has their back to the camera & dark hair Besides, 8 foot spaceman that nobody (including the person taking the photo) noticed......come on. !!!!
And the comment about the camera being on a timer can only be guesswork (look at the height), & conveiniently allows the person making the claim to say that nobody was looking in the right direction.
Were timers fitted to cameras as standard in 1963.

Brilliant, why didn't we all think of that before INOT...

I mean, if the combined might of Kodak Labs and almost 50s years haven't managed to explain just how the guy appeared on the photo and no-one even saw him. All along, all they had to do, was ask you and you could have put them right.

You should quit hiding on-line on a forum like this and contact the UN I'm sure they have oodles of work for one so gifted.

Global warming? simple, lets all turn every fridge on and simply open the door...

Yes, I know... *Don't tell any of the "others"*

http://ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm Some more on the original photo of the "guy in the suit".. If memory serves me right ..version 3 of the "after the event", is the actual testimony of the guy who took the pictures

Well, the combined might of Kodak found that the film had not been tampered with, (I'm guessing that it was analysed by their special spaceman corroboration team, thus confirming that there was really a figure there), I don't think that much is in doubt, it is however the identity of the so called spaceman that is in doubt.

A guy delivers a film to (I assume) total strangers in their local developement shop and then claims they had no idea someone was standing behind their daughter, and furthermore MAYBE hovering but of course that is unsubstantiated because the figure is conveniently obscured by the girl's head.

itsnotoutthere is absolutely correct, it is clearly someone standing with their back to the camera, but I think the biggest issue is that we only have the photographers word that they didn't see anyone there when the picture was taken.

But maybe you should contact the UN tell them to start up a special 'spaceman' investigation team, and duh open your freezers much cooler than a fridge

Try reading the link before posting..It saves you from le pied dans la bouche disease... The daughter wife and the photographer all said there was no one there apart from a couple of old ladies, sitting in a car, knitting some 300-400 yards away.

You want to call the Templeton family liars. That is fair enough and as you are so convinced you know what the photo really is, why don't you claim the prize that is still on offer from Kodak?

The photo comes from a sequence of pictures that were taken that day, none of which show any tall figure, in some kind of suit. It was the chemist who developed the pictures who brought to the Templeton;s attention the fact that. "The guy in the suit had ruined the best of the pictures of their daughter".

Fact;... to this day Kodak say that the film is definitely NOT a double exposure..

Now lets apply some logic to all this.

It's 1964 in a part of Britain where that was as much as a 14 hour drive from London. Now as you are in the back end of nowhere, if you had a camera and saw a figure dressed like that what would you do? Yes, in all probability you would take as many pictures as possible and be waiting outside the chemists, to prove to everyone you have already told that, you, did indeed, see what you say you saw.

We are talking about a time and place where you could buy a decent family house for less than $500. The photographs of the figure, if syndicated, could be worth the deposit on a new house. The chances are, had the guy known the figure was on the film he would have also immediately contacted his local press with a view to selling them.

I think it's fair to suggest that. had the guy a; seen the figure, he would have taken several photo's just out of a natural curiosity and b; had he been trying to perpetrate a hoax, he'd have done so, with a far better cover story. It would have been far easier for Templeton to have gone alone and taken pictures of the figure. That way his family would never have been placed in the , somewhat invidious position, of having to back his tale up. Something which they have always done.

I think it's wholly fair to suggest that. had he concocted the picture as a hoax and drawn his family into it, the hoax itself would have been a tad more spectacular in its execution . After all, if you are going to risk dragging your family into it, what is the point of making such a *lame* story up?

In other words, the very fact the incident seems so "lame" is partly what makes it so interesting. Now you could suggest that Templeton had worked this out beforehand. I would suggest that Templeton was just not that sort of bloke. By all accounts he a straight down the line average Joe and that is in no way, meant in demeaning manner. After 45 years and so much close scrutiny no one has ever come forward and even hinted that Templeton, was the sort of guy to play that sort of prank or ever have a history before, or since, of such japery.

In actual fact, by going public, in that sort of community back then, he risked ridicule on, not only himself, but his whole family. It could easily, have led to him losing his job and being forced to leave the area.

Yet, here we are, some 45 years later, and the story remains the same, the picture is still unexplained and the Templetons have never sought to pad the whole thing out and suddenly remember, extra details from the day, to convince people it was genuine. If it was a hoax and the family were lying, it would be wholly natural to embellish to seek further credibility.


You see, in these cases, the witnesses themselves are often almost as fascinating as the incident. With the Templetons, they simply aren't. They are a very "normal" family who had something rather strange interrupt their lives. That is, in part, why the photo is still discussed, because, like its' image, the Templetons are still the same , to this day.

It also shows the blind arrogance of some people in that. Even today, people think they immediately can see it is a fake even though, people far more qualified than them who, thought exactly the same, have said on investigating in it depth. "Sorry, but as far as we can tell it is genuine".

When people post such comments as. "Oh it's obviously fake" Does it ever pass through their minds, for one second, that they might not be the first to say exactly that same thing in the intervening 45 years? And that, just maybe, the reason it is still talked about is because that has never been proved to be the case?

When I look at such a picture, the first question that springs to my mind is:

"What am I really looking at here ?"

And the next one is:

"What is somebody trying to make me believe I am seeing here ?"

Yep... If we believe that aliens look exactly like our childhood "spaceman" toys, then, for sure, that "must" be a "spaceman". No doubt about it.

And what strikes me as odd is that this is exactly what the author of this photograph wants us to believe !

Sure, he points out how uninterested in UFOs he has always been. Yet in an interview in 2002 - 38 years after the picture was taken - his rational reference to it is “displaying what looks like a spaceman in the background...” and then, "Apparently, two similar looking 'spacemen' had been seen close to the rocket..."

But wait a minute, sir... How did you conclude this was a "spaceman" ?

All I see - like others have mentioned - is a fully human man with his back to the camera wearing a white sweater and white cap. The black part is his hair. And it seems to me that for a person with such a disinterest in UFOs - as the author claims - the last conclusion he should have come to is that this must surely be an "alien from outer space" - and even less, to want to link it to an unrelated UFO incident.

If he has had this picture for 38 years, he should have noticed what we noticed looking at the picture for only a few minutes: That the arm at the right is clearly the BACK of an arm; therefore, the black part on the head could not be what at first looks like a visor (and what the photographer WANTS us to believe is a visor), but is simply the hair on the back of the man's head !

As for the awkward angle that - we are told - suggests the man is flying... (Does it ???) I would invite you to take a good look at the horizon line. As a photographer myself, I try and make sure that, when a horizon line is evident, it is used as a level (via the viewfinder) for the camera. The fact is that it is not the "spaceman" that is tilted, but the camera itself ! If one corrects the horizon line by tilting the photograph (see below), then the man's slight tilt is nothing out of the ordinary.

And as for the apparent size of the man, it's plainly obvious that the picture was taken while the photographer was crouching down to take a picture of his young daughter sitting on the grass, making the man behind look much taller than he really was !

My "down to earth" theory: There was a man in the background of one of the photographs - which the photographer did not pay attention to when he took the picture. When he brought the photo home, somebody said "It looks like a spaceman !" And he has been riding on that ever since...

Brilliant, another person who thinks that, people were so dumb back in the 60s they wouldn't have considered this explanation.

Templeton used the description spacesuit , because at the time, that was his only cultural reference for such a garb. To me, i thought if anything, it looks rather similar to the garb worn by fire fighters who worked on airfields and similar installations. They were made of asbestos if memory serves me right. Like this http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3094332.jpg...55A1E4F32AD3138

Only that then begs the question. What was a person doing wandering around the middle of nowhere in one of those suits and what fire were they fighting and how come no-one including the press ever noticed it?

To the best of my knowledge, the maths were all done back then, yes probably using such antiquated things as a pencil and paper, how did we cope? The result being that, the figure, if it standing on the floor, has been calculated at some 8 ft in height. So, the tallest man in Britain ever, was wandering around Cumbria wearing a bright white sweater and no-one noticed. In fact, he was so anonymous that he was never recorded as the tallest man in Britain.


Do you really think the blindingly obvious points you make weren't carefully sifted through by the press at the time? Show me the link where the photo was exposed at the time ? Given the publicity the photo still attracts, I am pretty damn certain, had it been exposed as a fake, we would have had someone on here be able to point us in the direction of the "actual explanation".

http://ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm Oh and that is actually the photo not the slightly skewed angle the one posted on here would suggest...

The one I posted IS the one from the webpage above. What I did is CORRECT the angle of the horizon line because the photographer's camera was tilted when he took the picture and it made it look like the man in the background was at an angle. The red line shows the horizontal plane. When the picture is re-oriented so the horizon line is HORIZONTAL, then the man's real orientation becomes clear.

If in all those years, nobody has actually noticed that the man on the picture has his back to the camera, yet the few people on here immediately noticed that, that's a pretty sad statement on the lack of objectivity in this field !

Of course, making headlines with "Spaceman photographed" is bound to sell more papers than "Man with his back to the camera photographed" !!! That probably has something to do with it.

You say he used the description "at the time". I am quoting from his 2002 interview - 38 years after the fact.

And I don't get how you are looking at this and seeing any kind of protective wear. That's only if you insist on looking at this image as if it were the front view and imagine the dark area is a visor. Lots of imagination required here. But that's just the back of a man wearing an ordinary white sweater and a cap on his head !!! And that man most likely was on an outing just like the photographer and his daughter.

Why try and make something extraordinary out of an image that is quite ordinary ? Just a picture of a little girl with an ordinary human man with his back to the camera in the background.

As for the size, I don't know where you get the notion that "the math was done" because the only way to determine an actual size would be to know the actual distance of the man from the camera - which we cannot measure because his feet are hidden from view !

Right and it couldn't possibly be that, the land was slightly sloping upwards from right to left behind the girl could it? Given the guy was a bit of an enthusiast i would suggest the photo you see is as is. In fact, i would suggest that, the cloud line, visible in the back ground, is wholly in keeping with the land being slightly sloping.

As for the guy being photographed from the back. Right and now lets completely ignore the cultural diktats about appearance from that era. In 1964, outside of a few beatniks and trend setters in London, virtually every single bloke in Britain had his hair styled, cough, in such a way that, virtually the whole of the neck would have been exposed from the ear line downwards.

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1261122.jpg...55A1E4F32AD3138 two typical blokes, with typical hairstyles Britain 1964, note the complete lack of hair from the ears downwards at the back of the head.

38 year old mystery solved in a few minutes .............. cool.

Don't worry, If a boeing 747 flew over at 500 feet in broad daylight 'Firemoon' would swear it was a ufo.

''As for the guy being photographed from the back. Right and now lets completely ignore the cultural diktats about appearance from that era. In 1964, outside of a few beatniks and trend setters in London, virtually every single bloke in Britain had his hair styled, cough, in such a way that, virtually the whole of the neck would have been exposed from the ear line downwards.''







Click to view attachment

Some 'trend setters' from 1964. Trend setters. i.e. people who start trends that others adopt.

'The combined might of Kodak labs & 50 years'' LOL those boys at Kodak must have a lot of free time on there hands.

''Brilliant, why didn't we all think of that before INOT...'' most people have but people like you refuse to listen MOON.

Yes INOT, let's just ignore the actual work done by specialists when we have such brilliance available on forums like this.

What is next for you? The Peruvians started WW2?

All your comments do is give further credence to the suspicions many hold on here that. People of your ilk, are actually more interested in the sound of their own voice than anything that actually has met reality.

I'd suggest , instead of gracing us mere mortals with your presence you contact Kodak and claim, the still outstanding prize. You can share with your fellow know it alls. I am sure Kodak will be only too glad to solve this mystery at last.

It just about sums up, the blind arrogance that some people approach the whole subject with.

Ok. lets for an instant dip our toe into 'FIREMOON' world.
Whilst on a day out in the country a couple & their daughter stop to take photos. The only other persons present were possibly a couple of little old ladies in what appears to be an open field. Dad takes a photo of his little girl, & at that very moment an 8 feet tall alien in a 1960s sci-fi space suit runs across the length of the field just to get in the photo & then runs off again, & nobody notices until the film is developed. When its put like that, it's all so reasonable.
Perhaps he's one of those practical joker aliens that likes to spoil peoples holiday snaps.

p.s. Y ou make Kodak sound like a branch of the F.B.I.

p.p.s. I haven't stated that the picture is 'fake'. I believe that whoever is in the background, was in the background when the picture was taken.

''It just about sums up, the blind arrogance that some people approach the whole subject with.''

It is a non-subject. The only subject here is people that are so desparate to believe something 'other worldly' in something positively mundane, that they are willing to dismiss the blindingly obvious.

A thought of not to being too confined by another's opinion.

If you had actually bothered to read the previous thread on this subject I already made it plain that this photo probably only comes up in UFO circles because of the image itself and the strange occurrence at Woomera that happened concurrently to the Templeton incident.

In many ways the photo fits far more succinctly into "Anomalous images on film" category such as the following image of a person who was apparently dead when this photo was taken http://www.freewebs.com/free-offers/mable_...20=%20%2001.jpg

My watching brief, as it were , is firmly in the Vallee/Keel camp. That is i believe weird**** happens. As such, as a rational and inquisitive human being i would like to know why this is so?. What are the mechanics and science behind this phenomenon.?

Do i see a *spaceman*?, have i said i see a *spaceman*? Oh damn, no i haven't. In fact I am still not sure what that figure is at all. The closer you study the figure the less it seems to make sense. If it is a person, and they are not wearing some kind of suit. They have a most unusual physiological make up. They have a freakishly sized chest/back and walk with an extremely strange gait that involves, leaning over almost to the point of tipping.

In other words, even if it is a figure, it still doesn't quite add up. There is no blur to suggest the figure was moving. However, close inspection of the head part leads to further obscurity. What looks like a visor, or hair when focused on, disappears into a blur that suggest no real resolution. To the best of my knowledge the lab people at Kodak had no real luck themselves in being able to clear this fact up.

That leaves us with the question. Why would the person who took it, seek to expose them self and their family to the possibility of such public ridicule and possible, nay probable, lambasting.? There again, we find a "pretty average Jo" who suddenly takes it upon them self to step into the glare of the public's gaze then vanish again after and seek no further exposure. That is, they do not seem to conform to the typical psyche of a hoaxer. There are no accompanying tales from locals of "Oh that Templeton family always were a strange one"..."Oh that Templeton fellah, he has always been a bit of one if you know what i mean?" wink wink nudge nudge..

You see, as most self professed debunkers would never ever stoop to actually doing any serious investigation for themselves, you therefore have very little background to fall back on when confronted with an incident like this. Those of us who are willing to get down and dirty and actually spend our time digging into these things develop a BS detector that goes off inside the head.

It goes off when, for no good reason, the witness demands anonymity and then, from that cover regales the public with ever more fantastic tales of weirdness.

It goes off when the witness continually adds to their original story in order to remain in the limelight.

In this case, the over-riding impression is of a "typical family" of it's era. Maybe even a little staid, given that the daughters hairstyle was popular in the 1930s not the 1960s, who, had their cosy little part of Britain intruded upon by an incident that made them question some of the values they had, until then , held as immutable and solid.

Now it would seem that the possibility of, evidence from, literally, just down the road has come to light that would suggest that. The Templeton's were not alone in taking photo's of this character. If the photos do see the light of day and i hope they do, it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how close to the Templeton's figure they are.

In the end that is all i am saying. I for one, have some confidence in the ability of Kodak's staff to have thoroughly investigated the print and in all probability, thought of the "bloke in a white sweater facing away from camera solution", but on closer investigation concluded.."Sorry, it ain't that".

Like i said earlier. Given your obvious brilliance in these matters, Why are you and your ilk, hanging around here when you could be on the phone claiming your prize.? Or is that , just maybe, you are actually , as we Brits say, "all mouth and trousers", all be it, all mouth and trousers facing away from the camera?

The hue and cry from debunkers world wide is "Show us the evidence for any of this weird**** you say happens, so that qualified personnel, in those particular fields, might study it and make their judgement"

In this case the "evidence" was given to the exact people who should be able to solve the mystery. Only, of course, I forget, experts are only experts, in the eyes of debunkers, when they agree with their prognosis from the very outset. When they don't reach the conclusion the debunkers think they should. That immediately allows the debunker to hold forth on, just how obvious the reality of the situation is and completely ignore the opinions of the experts. However, should a "believer" dismiss, out of hand, the opinions of the experts, they are, of course, a charlatan.

I believe that is called hypocrisy and "having your cake and eating it". Some people on this forum are veritable divas at it.

I'm glad you've brought up this point...because it kind-of reflects a bit... what I'm thinking about 'the figure'
.....tentatively thinking... as I've never come across the picture and story before....but it's
grabbed my interest.

I've just been looking at this site...http://timelines.ws/20thcent/1964.HTML....and 1964 was a
VERY busy and interesting year....including...Ranger 6 launched from Cape Canaveral with TVs...to be
crashed on the moon....huge storm hit California...9.2 earthquake in Alaska....Soviets launched 'Voskhod'
space capsule...Mariner 3 launched...failed? to reach trajectory around Mars...China tested it's first nuclear
bomb...Russian ZOND 2 flyby lost contact enroute to Mars...Project Shipboard Hazard and Defence, experiments
included the use of sarin and VX nerve gases and the staphylococcal enteroxin B.....1964-1967, in England
secret germ warfare experiments, scientists released 3 types of bacteria....

What I began thinking was perhaps all sorts of weird and 'wonderful' experiments were going on around this
time.....perhaps some of them were about inter-dimensional travel.....time travel?.....'beam me around the
globe, Scotty' type experiments.......perhaps there was 'messing about' with time and space in some way...
and the figure in the picture was somehow to do with that ??? And the ones in Woomera, Australia.




That figure is odd in many ways......what started me thinking about POSSIBLE physical re-location of
some kind was that.....I think it MIGHT have a back-pack on...although it's hard to make out...look at the
square bit that cuts into the upper arm....on the right arm (as we look at it)....and possibly part of a strap that crosses
over on the left upper- back (as we look at it).

This made me think of human astronauts.....or perhaps someone dealing with hazardous substances....

What if there were space/time experiments that went a bit crazy and real people popped up in different
locations (in their special-suits...maybe wearing back-packs?) but only a couple got photographed or
registered...ie near Carlisle and in Woomera. (see edit)

There was also that connection between the 2 places to 'Bluestreak'. (in link provided by FireMoon
earlier)......

I DO love a good mystery.....

EDIT....to add....and of course, not forgetting the photo at the OPs parents wedding...

I have wondered whether, the props people on Doctor Who took their inspiration for this creature from the Templeton Photo http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/photoshop/PyramidsofMars.jpg

I can't believe you people are arguing so heatedly about what is obviously a person in the background.

From the 'ufo casebook' website.

''Some days later Mr Templeton got his photographs processed by the chemist, who said that it was a pity that the man who had walked past had spoilt the best shot of Elizabeth holding a bunch of flowers. Jim was puzzled. There had been nobody else on the marshes nearby at the time. But sure enough, on the picture in question there was a figure in a silvery white space suit projecting at an odd angle into the air behind the girl's back, as if an unwanted snooper had wrecked the shot.
The case was reported to the police''

shouldn't that read :- ''the chemist, who said that it was a pity that the spaceman who had walked past had spoilt the best shot of Elizabeth

Next time I have some holiday snaps developed, & I notice somebody in the background that I can't remember being there when I took the photo, I must remember to run to the nearest police station & report it. (exactly what did he want the police to do?)

p.s. Can you provide the KODAK web page with the report on the photo for me to read please. As opposed to any ufo enthuiast web site that claims Kodak studied the photo, Ta.

I rest my case.....

I think we have to take a couple of factors into account here. First of all, this is a fairly old picture. In the 1960's (or whatever year this picture was taken), you couldn't just open PhotoShop and start wailing away. With that said, just because it's an older picture doesn't mean it can't be faked. I'm personally a fan of older pictures, because they feel a lot more authentic. People back then weren't always out for publicity (even though there were some), and everyone just lived such simple lives.

I think there's more to it than that.....there's obviously a 'figure' in the background....but how that
figure came to be there is the question. And whether the figure is a human or not a human.

Then I was speculating whether....if the figure is human.....it might be something to do with a
space/time warp thing ?

Because if Mr Templeton is to be believed, it wasn't obviously there when he took the picture.

Maybe it appeared for a split second and got captured by the camera.

So why bother wasting bandwidth making any comment yourselves?

It doesn't matter if it's human or not; it's super mysterious and interesting as anything!

Because we must strive to separate b***s*** from reality. Otherwise this forum would become a haven for fantasists enthusiastcally patting each other on the back, & saying 'look what I've investigated on the internet' & that is the route to self delusion. Its all about checks & balances.

Picture is on link quoted at top......does anyone else think the 'figure' might have a back-pack
of some kind on ?

It does look similar to a bee keeper outfit lol.

Very funny....

Back-pack anyone....?

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


I wonder if Kodak will send me FREE FILM if I tell them about my astronaut-in-a-space/time-warp blip, theory!!!

The ONLY thing that makes this photo "mysterious" is one guy's memory of someone not being there, and he could be lying or just mistaken.

Sorry, but that isn't nearly enough to make me think in any way the figure in the background is something mysterious.

Hello...Very interesting....I have been familar with this photo for 25 years or so.

Here's my take on it....This is a photo of an individual wearing a suit. He is facing front with his arm resting in the back.
It's a military "At ease" pose or position...Even if it's only one arm in the back. The photographer did not notice this individual.
Film will pick images the human eye can not see.

A link to an interview:
http://www.beamsinvestigations.org.uk/The%...%20Spaceman.htm

Well, apart from the fact, had i had a camera and that character appeared from nowhere I'd be taking a picture of him. Plus, most photographers try to avoid mysterious characters, in all white, poking from daughters head when taking photo portraits they intend to keep. It's just one of those weird arty things.

I am pretty sure there is no "Whistlers mother ( with strange bloke in all white poking out of her head)". I am not sure the artistic value of the Mona Lisa would have been increased had Leonardo added a; "strange bloke in all white poking out of her head"...