bee Posted June 3, 2014 #76 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I will give it to ya bee i got a damn good laugh out of that Let's just consider that to be true and it is still the least of their worries,apparently they have the combined eyesight of Hellen Keller and Mr Magoo.... haha....yes...you're not wrong about their unbelievably poor eyesight... and inability to recognise 1. themselves 2. family members imagine their holiday snaps....what a nightmare.... Mr T....'that spaceman followed us to the beach darling...' Mrs T...'the b****** has nicked my blue dress again..' Mr T...'there's a little spaceman by the rock-pool...' Mrs T...'.It might be Elizabeth, darling...' Mr T..no it's definitely a little spaceman... Mrs T...do little spacemen like ice-creams then?' etc etc . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted June 3, 2014 #77 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Would you not agree though that if the "being" in that picture had 10ft long legs,as zoser suggests therefor a total body size of around 15-20 ft someone should have seen it that very day?A being of that size would be pretty hard to not notice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #78 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Would you not agree though that if the "being" in that picture had 10ft long legs,as zoser suggests therefor a total body size of around 15-20 ft someone should have seen it that very day?A being of that size would be pretty hard to not notice.... Just because zoser read somewhere the legs have to be too long, it means nothing. Dont forget that chap will have people believe every woowoo story is true no matter how ridiculous it is. Last week he was saying the San Andreas fault was the earths vagina, which was fertilised by a comet with a tail, (ie looks like a sperm) and then gave birth to our moon I mean - COME ON! he hasnt a clue and just believes stuff he finds on dubious sites. So, let me ask you, what on earth makes anyone think this figure is so tall? Did you know this about human proportions "Basics of human proportions." "It is important in figure drawing to draw the human figure in proportion. Though there are sutbtle differences between individuals, human proportions fit within a fairly standard range, though artists have historically tried to create idealised standards. In figure drawing, the basic unit of measurement is the 'head', which is the distance from the top of the head to the chin. This unit of measurement is reasonably standard, and has long been used by artists to establish the proportions of the human figure. The proportions used in figure drawing are: An average person, is generally 7-and-a-half heads tall (including the head)." http://en.wikipedia....man_proportions he just read that about the height, no doubt from someone who hasnt got a clue either . Edited June 3, 2014 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #79 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Would you not agree though that if the "being" in that picture had 10ft long legs,as zoser suggests therefor a total body size of around 15-20 ft someone should have seen it that very day?A being of that size would be pretty hard to not notice.... Apparently the figure was not visible to the naked eye....Jim Templeton or his wife or child didn't see a figure... I will get link later as I have to go out now... Soooo it must have been picked up by the camera, somehow..... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted June 3, 2014 #80 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Oh i know seeder look at my first post a page back,im just trying to get someone who believes this to give me a good explanation lol.The picture was with a crappy old camera,i think the redone pic you posted showed this quite nicely in comparison. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #81 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) The mysterious spaceman story might have rocked on forever as one of Forteana's greatest hits were it not for the denizens of a number of internet forums who wielded Occam's Razor with deadly accuracy.[4][5] A photo analyst demonstrated that the “spaceman” was nothing more than an adult person of normal height with their back to the camera walking away from the child.[6] Others observed that another photograph taken that day shows Templeton's wife, Annie, wearing a very light blue sleeveless dress. Closer examination of the original "spaceman" image reveals that the arm of the mysterious figure has a decidedly tapering, feminine curve to it. Exactly like the bare arm of a woman wearing a very light blue sleeveless dress. Her back to us, she is probably wearing some kind of white cap over her close-cropped hairstyle.[7] Enhancing the contrast of the photo further reveals the distinctive neckline and arm holes of her dress.[8] The famous "spaceman" illusion was created when Annie Templeton inadvertently photobombed[9] the snapshot taken by her amateur photographer husband. He didn't see her in the background due to the blind spot in his Pentacon F SLR camera's viewfinder that only allowed him to see 70% of what the lens was capturing.[10] This is backed up by the other photo taken that day that shows his wife, again caught in Templeton's blind spot. So Templeton's lifelong claims were technically sincere: there was no one else with them that day, and he really didn't see anything other than his daughter when he took the photo, and the photograph wasn't manipulated, faked, or staged in any way. Templeton may have been honestly puzzled by the photo, at least initially. But given the improvements in SLR design over the years, it's hard to imagine photo hobbyist Templeton never discovered his vintage camera's notorious blind spot. It's more likely that possible public embarrassment prevented Templeton from changing his "mystery" story once it became cemented as fact by the world wide press http://rationalwiki....tually_happened THIS IS WHY no person was 'seen' through the camera, DO read . Edited June 3, 2014 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #82 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And just to rubbish zosers claims the woman must be ten foot tall...nonsense, here is a regular guy superimposed over the woman from tip of head. I dont think zoser realises the photographer is very low, squatting or sitting... and you can tell that as the small girls is sitting down look straight at the camera, NOT UP at the camera! So as there is a hill in the background, and..as the photographer is low, a false perspective is created, whereby the wife only seems tall In this perspective illusion, the girls are all the same size, even tho the one farthest right 'seems' taller And again, the 3 barrels are all exact same zise Our disposition to interpret perspective cues in depth has been extensively used in illusions. Figure 65 shows three barrels that are actually of equal size. We see them as being of different sizes because of the perspective introduced in the surround. . Again do READ this post pls . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #83 Share Posted June 3, 2014 For zosers insane idea that this figure is so tall it would have to look like this 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted June 3, 2014 #84 Share Posted June 3, 2014 LMAO!!! This thread hasn't been a waste,i've gotten some damn good laughs out of it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra. Posted June 3, 2014 #85 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Would you not agree though that if the "being" in that picture had 10ft long legs,as zoser suggests therefor a total body size of around 15-20 ft someone should have seen it that very day?A being of that size would be pretty hard to not notice.... Actually CK, if anyone was to notice anything....it would have been.... a woman with a humped back, in a blue dress, jumping madly around whilst also being lop sided and having a tube hanging out of her head. Now, you know that Bee believes that, so you should just trust her on this ok? Forget about the 10ft long legged "being"....it just didn't happen. Mrs T before she left the house that morning. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesspy Posted June 3, 2014 #86 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) For zosers insane idea that this figure is so tall it would have to look like this I spat my coffee all over my laptop when I saw this. Also the long leg theme got me thinking of this family guy scene. [media=] [/media] Edited June 3, 2014 by jesspy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #87 Share Posted June 3, 2014 For zosers insane idea that this figure is so tall it would have to look like this yes very amusing.....the reason zoser said about the height and the long legs...was IF the figure was physically there and was standing (albeit in a lop sided way)....behind the girl then it would need to have long legs... but as the figure was NOT there in the purely physical sense...then the height is a moot point... And by the way...you seem to be using an elongated version of the original photo..... even though it is totally wishful thinking to suggest that Jim Templeton wouldn't have seen a figure...had one been there.. I mean.....he didn't actually have his camera glued to his eye....and the potty theory of it being Mrs Templeton... why would she wizz into shot...then not recognise herself when the pic was processed.... The suggestion that the figure is Mrs Templeton is a non starter... I am astonished that anyone would try and argue that it was... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #88 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Would you not agree though that if the "being" in that picture had 10ft long legs,as zoser suggests therefor a total body size of around 15-20 ft someone should have seen it that very day?A being of that size would be pretty hard to not notice.... okey dokey.... at the bit starting 1:44....Jim talks about when the MIB types took him to the place where he took the photo... and asked him..where he saw the alien.. Jim replies that they didn't see anyone...and they just left him there to walk back.. I think it is interesting that they asked where he saw the alien...like they were planting this idea into the story... My own personel opinion is that what Jim's camera picked up (and the same for the Woomera sighting) was a kind of displacement of a real person...who could have been part of a teleportation or time technology experiment... that was somehow connected to nuclear matter....at the nearby nuclear facility and at the blue streak rocket launch in Woomera... I don't know what the shutter speed was...but I'm thinking it was fast enough to pick up on the figure.... but the naked eye couldn't pick it up...it was probably a chance in a million (ish) that he caught the figure at all... I know this all sounds a bit complicated.... ....but there you go....It happened 21 years after the Philadelphia Experiment.. (and 17 years after Roswell)....gawd knows what experiments had been taking place over those years... [media=] [/media]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient astronaut Posted June 3, 2014 #89 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's not that simple. Look at the distance to the ground. Legs ten feet long? Yeah, his (or her) arms are bent in a way that suggests he (or she) was facing the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient astronaut Posted June 3, 2014 #90 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Yeah, his (or her) arms are bent in a way that suggests he (or she) was facing the opposite direction. Quote was meant for another comment sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted June 3, 2014 #91 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Yeah, his (or her) arms are bent in a way that suggests he (or she) was facing the opposite direction. also bent in a way that doesnt suggest 'walking' unless at quite a speed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #92 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Actually CK, if anyone was to notice anything....it would have been.... a woman with a humped back, in a blue dress, jumping madly around whilst also being lop sided and having a tube hanging out of her head. Now, you know that Bee believes that, so you should just trust her on this ok? Forget about the 10ft long legged "being"....it just didn't happen. Mrs T before she left the house that morning. tee hee..... Mr and Mrs Templeton relaxing at home... . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #93 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) I mean.....he didn't actually have his camera glued to his eye... . YES he did!! Come on now Bee, dont tell me you have only ever used modern cameras that you look at the lcd screen instead of thru the tiny little viewfinders on the old cameras?? Old cameras required your eye right against the viewfinder and usually the other tight shut Heres Jim and his cam, a late 1950s model Zeiss Contax "Pentacon F" SLR camera. The eyepiece/viewfinder Can you see this photographers eyes? And while he is in that pose can HE see whats left and right of him without losing his shot? NO! Edited June 3, 2014 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #94 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) also bent in a way that doesnt suggest 'walking' unless at quite a speed.... or it could be as simple as scratching her bum! Imagine this seen from the angle in the pic. I dont see why the wife would be 'running' anywhere, she's with her family And seeing as its women who typically place their hands on their hips, and because we see only one arm, it could be as simple as that Edited June 3, 2014 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted June 3, 2014 #95 Share Posted June 3, 2014 or it could be as simple as scratching her bum! Imagine this seen from the angle in the pic. I dont see why the wife would be 'running' anywhere, she's with her family And seeing as its women who typically place their hands on their hips, and because we see only one arm, it could be as simple as that fair point 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #96 Share Posted June 3, 2014 . Sorry...it's not Mrs Templeton...if there was the slightest chance that it could ever be proved one way or the other... I would put a large bet on it NOT being Mrs T. People have SUGGESTED different mundane things over the years.....none of which satisfy... It remains an Unexplained Mystery... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 3, 2014 #97 Share Posted June 3, 2014 or it could be as simple as scratching her bum! oh for heavens sake.. .. so Mrs T...rushes into shot, scratches her bum....and neither she nor he husband recognises that it's her for FIFTY years.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhead1 Posted June 3, 2014 #98 Share Posted June 3, 2014 For zosers insane idea that this figure is so tall it would have to look like this bloody hilarious 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessorPurple Posted June 3, 2014 #99 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Quite surprising, or maybe not, that people charge into these threads without reading previous posts. It seems to happen again and again. Why they don't bother to go back to the start of a thread or at least recap a few pages is a mystery to me. Anyway, I can say that I recognise this situation from taking photographs of my kids. I can spend some time having the view-finder pressed to my eye, waiting for the moment, and be unaware of whats going on around me. Luckily with digital SLR, you don't waste film. I know that the camera Templeton had wasn't hi-tech and had 35mm film that he didn't want to waste, he would have been glued to that view-finder to catch that shot of his daughter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 3, 2014 #100 Share Posted June 3, 2014 oh for heavens sake.. .. so Mrs T...rushes into shot, scratches her bum....and neither she nor he husband recognises that it's her for FIFTY years.... . OH for heavens sake indeed. Why has she rushed into the shot? WHO EVER said that? Or implied it? No-one did, so thats just something you made up. Isnt it? She probably stood there all through the shot, as she's part of the family Old Jim was quite correct to not have seen anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts