Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > UFOs / ETs / Anunnaki / Orbs / Crop Circles / Solar System / Space
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-07-2011, 04:24 PM   #41
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesc View Post
Here are three texts of information below on this photo, what gets me is this,that there was another sighting of a very similar figure in Australia the figure in Cumbria looked the same as the ones that they had seen on the monitor at Woomera in Australia;
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Blue Streak launch;

"A Blue Streak launch at the Woomera Test Range, using Cumbrian-built weaponry,[6] had been aborted because of two large men seen on the firing range. Technicians at the time did not know about Templeton's sighting until it appeared on the front page of an Australian newspaper, and they said that the figure in Cumbria looked the same as the ones that they had seen on the monitor at Woomera.[3][4] Templeton told the BBC that technicians considered the two figures to be "exactly the same type of man: same dress, same figure, same size" as in the original photograph;"

" analysts at Kodak confirmed that the photograph was genuine".[2]

link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman

quote;
"Department of Scientific Intelligence writing a memo on it for the Ministry of Defense and asking was it similar to the figures that appeared on the Woomera film, it would have vanished into the mists of time.

"There again just maybe, they were a little concerned that this figure, seemingly similar to others appearing on the other side of the world, in the same time frame, had shown up a couple of miles from where Britain was developing the rocket silo design that was to go on to be adopted by the USA for most of it's land based nuclear arsenal".

link; http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread621263/pg1

************************************************** ********

1960′s, England – A local Cumbrian man takes one of the most extraodinary photo’s ever seen.

It was May 23, 1964 and a local Cumbrian (UK) firefighter called Jim Templeton took his wife and daughter to Burgh Marsh an area of natural beauty approximately eight miles west of Carlisle, Northern England. Before Jim Templeton set foot there, Burgh Marsh’s claim to fame was as the site where King Edward I died of dysentry in 1307 on his way back from Scotland. John who was an amateur photographer wanted to take some photos of their daughter Elizabeth with his Kodak SLR. She posed for him sitting on the grass for one of what was to become one of the most remarkable photographic mysteries ever.

A few days later, whilst popping into the local chemist to pickup the newly developed snaps the chemist remarked to Jim that the photo’s had come out well. Here is one of the three :



But, the chemist remarked, it was a pity about the idiot who was standing behind Elizabeth in one of the pictures. Jim looked at the picture in question and this is what he saw:



The figure appeared to be standing right behind Elizabeth, how had Jim not noticed this bizarre tall figure encroaching his shot? Jim and his family never saw another person on their walk, and this mysterious figure wasn’t in any of the other photographs Jim had taken. He had taken three pictures in quick succession of Elizabeth and only the middle one of the three had this figure on it.

The story could have ended there but word soon got round and the photo made the local and then national papers.

The photograph made it down under and was published in Australia newspapers soon after. The newspapers in Australia requested a copy of the negative of the picture, as they had their own strange sighting to report that happened to coincide with the figure in Jim’s photo.

Woomera, Australia was the launch site of a big space project called Blue Streak. On May 23, 1964;


Woomera, Australia was the launch site of a big space project called Blue Streak. On May 23, 1964 a rocket launch countdown was apparently aborted when security cameras caught two “men” in white spacesuits walking around the launch pad. When the site was checked later by security staff no person or tracks could be found. This freaky incident happened within hours of Jim snapping his photograph on the otherside of the world.

Later, Jim learned that rockets used for the Blue Streak project were being manufactured at RAF Spadeadam, England which is only a few miles from Burgh Marsh.

The picture and negative was exhaustively examined by Kodak’s finest experts for any signs of tampering or hoax but none could be found. They then offered a reward of free film for a year to any person that could solve the mystery as to how this figure got into the picture. To this day the reward lies unclaimed.

This is where the legend of the Cumberland Spaceman was born.

Stranger still, Jim was visited by two strangers wearing dark suits who claimed to be Government officials driving a dark Jaguar and pulled Jim out of his day job to take them and show them the site where the photo was taken. They asked Jim specific questions about the weather, had he seen any local people or animal activity on the day. They then tried to get Jim to admit that it was all just a big hoax, to which Jim refused to admit. It was at that point they drove off and left him and it was a five mile hike back to the firestation where Jim worked.

Australian reporters wanted to view the blue streak film taken on May 23rd, but were told it was all convieniently missing. To this day it has never surfaced.

The only known fact in this case bar the photo itself is that a friend of mine knows Jim Templeton and one thing is for sure, they have never proved that the photo was a fake and Jim Templeton never made any serious money from it.

Strange indeed.

Have a look at my own investigation into the Spaceman photo here.
http://www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk/...paceman-photo/

Check out this excellent video of the incident from Disclose.tv taken from a UK UFO program presented by Jenny Randles. Featuring an interview with Jim Templeton.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...spaceman_1964/

Disclose.tv – the cumberland spaceman 1964 Video;

link; http://www.cumberlandspaceman.co.uk/...land-spaceman/
************************************************** ********
According to the book Out of the Shadows by Dr David Clarke the photo is a fake. The photo was analysed by a Roger Green of Bradford University who concluded that "the photo was a composite made using some superimposition technique".

However Dr Clarke does not believe that Jim Templeton faked it himself. Jim Templeton had a reputation as a bit of a practial joker and was well known by the staff where he got the photos developed. Dr Clarke believes that they faked the photos as a way of getting thier own back, and were going to tell Mr Templeton later. However the whole thing quickly got out of hand, and after all the attention the photo attracted they felt they had no option but to keep quiet.

As for the M.I.B, Nick Pope believes they were civilians impersonating MoD officials for their own ends.
************************************************** ********

So we have two independent photo experts coming up with two different conclusions, Kodak claiming it genuine and a one Roger Green of Bradford University claiming it fake;

The Ministry Of Defence Says "Similar".
A beekeeper is Similar, The Dunlop man is Similar and some toys are Similar.
Do you take the word of a "BBC technician" Or that of "The Ministry Of Defence".

Also the 2 spacemen seen walking around a missile site. Look at your second pic, the rocket, whats that standing by it ? Oh my, its 2 men in white.
Mm, Men in white suits in a missile testing site, What chances of technicians being around when a launch is due to take place, What chance of men in white at such locations.
The film of these 2 "Spacemen". Where is it. Oh yes as usual it does not exist, Its not there.

"Stranger still, Jim was visited by two strangers wearing dark suits who claimed to be Government officials driving a dark Jaguar and pulled Jim out of his day job to take them and show them the site where the photo was taken. They asked Jim specific questions about the weather, had he seen any local people or animal activity on the day. They then tried to get Jim to admit that it was all just a big hoax, to which Jim refused to admit. It was at that point they drove off and left him and it was a five mile hike back to the firestation where Jim worked."

How does anyone know these guys were from the Gov.
Just his word on that 1.
Could have been reporters for all we know. No story, you can walk home.


This is just a bad fake.

Last edited by belch; 18-07-2011 at 04:25 PM.
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2011, 03:48 PM   #42
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belch View Post
The Ministry Of Defence Says "Similar".
A beekeeper is Similar, The Dunlop man is Similar and some toys are Similar.
Do you take the word of a "BBC technician" Or that of "The Ministry Of Defence".

Also the 2 spacemen seen walking around a missile site. Look at your second pic, the rocket, whats that standing by it ? Oh my, its 2 men in white.
Mm, Men in white suits in a missile testing site, What chances of technicians being around when a launch is due to take place, What chance of men in white at such locations.
The film of these 2 "Spacemen". Where is it. Oh yes as usual it does not exist, Its not there.

"Stranger still, Jim was visited by two strangers wearing dark suits who claimed to be Government officials driving a dark Jaguar and pulled Jim out of his day job to take them and show them the site where the photo was taken. They asked Jim specific questions about the weather, had he seen any local people or animal activity on the day. They then tried to get Jim to admit that it was all just a big hoax, to which Jim refused to admit. It was at that point they drove off and left him and it was a five mile hike back to the firestation where Jim worked."

How does anyone know these guys were from the Gov.
Just his word on that 1.
Could have been reporters for all we know. No story, you can walk home.


This is just a bad fake.


As i said before i am not sure on this one but one thing is for sure judging by the quote below that the volume of aborted rocket launches that were due to staff wondering about the launch pad SECONDS before launching is pretty low;Also we have this ,"when the site was checked later by security staff no person or tracks could be found".Now what are the chances of launch personnel not only wandering about the launch pad before launching but NOT being AWARE of health and safety and launch protocol procedures;;:confused

:Also" technicians,(from"Woomera, Australia), considered the two figures to be "exactly the same type of man: same dress, same figure, same size" as in the original photograph;"What are the chances of a second independent witness such as the technicians,(from"Woomera, Australia),confirming the sighting on their monitors of a similar being,this second independent vitrification from credible source's, technicians,(from"Woomera, Australia), leads me to perceive that something or something strange happened or manifested in these two separate incidents;

Also we have to listen to Jenny Randles who was responsible from filling a freedom of information request from the MOD on this incident and pointed out that some important MOD files on this case were not supplied to her because of a 50 year wait, nothing to hide then;

quote;
"The analysis of the Solway Firth photograph is beyond laughable. They haven't a clue what they are talking about. The horizon in many hundreds of feet behind the girl's head, by their reckoning the bloke in the frame would have been about 25 foot tall. Still when did facts ever obstruct a good * debunk*. Theses sort of people are every bit as laughable and weak minded as the sort who claim every light in the sky is an alien ship.

Judging by the number of times the MOD has lied in the past of taking any interest or investigation's of UFOs seriously i would not be blamed for siding with the BBC technician on this one,so forgive me i choose to take the word of a "BBC technician" over that of "The Ministry Of Defence" on this one;
Also as i pointed out in my original post we have two independent annalists of this photo coming up with two different conclusions on this photo so who do we believe hear, Kodak’s finest experts or a one Roger Green of Bradford University who is claiming this fake;This case is a strange one and i am undecided for now;


Check out this excellent video of the incident from Disclose.tv taken from a UK UFO program presented by Jenny Randles. Featuring an interview with Jim Templeton.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...spaceman_1964/

quote;
"Woomera, Australia was the launch site of a big space project called Blue Streak. On May 23, 1964 a rocket launch countdown was apparently aborted when security cameras caught two “men” in white spacesuits walking around the launch pad. When the site was checked later by security staff no person or tracks could be found. This freaky incident happened within hours of Jim snapping his photograph on the otherside of the world".
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2011, 04:45 PM   #43
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

2 space men

They say the launch was aborted because of these 2 men in white. Maybe they aborted for other reasons and used "2 men in white" as an excuse.
Maybe they did not want to admit to costly or embarassing technical faults.
Incase of technical difficulties you would expect technicians to be around the area, I would expect them to be on standby.

No footprints.

That rocket site did not look to be made out of sand or mud, ie something that would show footprints. If it was it would be blown away on launch.
Like most rocket launchpads i would expect it to be concrete. So how would they expect to find footprints in an enviroment like that, In that day and age , And if they did, Then how could they distinguish them from regular footprints left by regular technicians ?

Discard the footprints, No foot prints is no evidence of anything.

The interview at the guys house.

He's got his story memorised over time, he does not get lead astray, he does not answer her (the interviewer) questions in order, If they do not fit with his order of memory. She asks him a question and he gives her an answer to a different question, then she asks another question and he gives her the answer to the original question.
He is following his routine that he learnt and has been practicing for all those years.


Im not buying it.
Its a toy on a stick and the Australian thing is a case of mistaken identity or a cover up for failed missile launch that would look very embarassing and difficult to explain. No film of Aus spacemen seals it for me as we can not even see if the Cumbrian and Australian are indeed the same.
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2011, 06:31 PM   #44
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belch View Post
2 space men

They say the launch was aborted because of these 2 men in white. Maybe they aborted for other reasons and used "2 men in white" as an excuse.
Maybe they did not want to admit to costly or embarassing technical faults.
Incase of technical difficulties you would expect technicians to be around the area, I would expect them to be on standby.

No footprints.

That rocket site did not look to be made out of sand or mud, ie something that would show footprints. If it was it would be blown away on launch.
Like most rocket launchpads i would expect it to be concrete. So how would they expect to find footprints in an enviroment like that, In that day and age , And if they did, Then how could they distinguish them from regular footprints left by regular technicians ?

Discard the footprints, No foot prints is no evidence of anything.

The interview at the guys house.

He's got his story memorised over time, he does not get lead astray, he does not answer her (the interviewer) questions in order, If they do not fit with his order of memory. She asks him a question and he gives her an answer to a different question, then she asks another question and he gives her the answer to the original question.
He is following his routine that he learnt and has been practicing for all those years.


Im not buying it.
Its a toy on a stick and the Australian thing is a case of mistaken identity or a cover up for failed missile launch that would look very embarassing and difficult to explain. No film of Aus spacemen seals it for me as we can not even see if the Cumbrian and Australian are indeed the same.


Yip, there are a lot of "maybes" in your post so we will leave it at that but for all you have said in your post it does not dis prove or alter the fact that the launch personnel would be totally aware and briefed on launched procedures and i cannot perceive any personnel risking their life on a launch platform mins from a live launch;

The fact that someone matching the description of the person photographed in the Solway Firth was seen on the monitors by the launch personnel is highly unusual ; Are we to believe that a cover up story that contains such a highly unusual excuse of a matching individual that was also photographed in Solway Firth would have been considered never mind put forward to cover up a failed launch mission, sorry i do not buy that, less attention not more would have been the goal i think;

That there was and never has been any release of this film is not surprising in my view if this showed a very unusual person on the launch pad, would they release it, i think not;On the footprints i will dig deeper on the launch pad make up;

Why would they make up a story of a strange person seen on the launch pad to cover up a failed rocket launch and draw much more attention, surely to admit a failed launch is better than starting lies about boggy men on the launch pad, does not make sense or add up;The
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 02:07 PM   #45
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Seems like a one Jenny Randles , British UFO researcher for the UK UFO investigation or B.U.F.O.R.A. was one of the main investigators who took the time and trouble to dig deeper on this case;She requested MOD investigation reports from the British MOD and came across their reports for the Solwayfirth incident;This MOD paper clearer states that this case was regarded as a high strangeness case and even went on to acknowledge the case involving the tecks from the aborted rocket launch in Australia who claimed they saw two people resembling the Solwayfirth individual;

This MOD document then states that the film of these two individuals seen on the monitors in the Australian case was being investigated,in short it existed and was clearly causing some concern to the authorities but no records of its whereabouts or what its conclusions where was found by Jenny Randles,she believed that these records of this film and its conclusions reached where kept secret and still are to this day;Sal in all we have a case that has the following ;

1;Jenny Randles filed an FOIA to the MOD. IIRC she got some documents back concerning the Blue Streak rocket test which were conducted near the site of the pic but other documents regarding the film of the aborted rocket test showing two individuals who matched the descriptions of the Solwayfirth are missing,WHY;

2;And then there's the Australian Blue Streak test(same year I think) where they supposedly saw similar beings.


This video gives an outline of the case AND jenny Randles investigation and MOD papers on this case;



There is a book " MIB INVESTIGATING THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MEN IN BLACK PHENOMENON " by Jenny Randles and covers the Solwayfirth incident in depth.
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.

Last edited by jamesc; 20-07-2011 at 02:09 PM.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 03:04 PM   #46
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

Yawnzzzz.

Donkies years ago, No proof of nothing if anything at all, Toy on a stick.

What are you hoping to prove now? Are you hoping that the film will suddenly appear and that it will seal the case ?
Its old hat ! Its done ! There is nothing more to investigate ! This conspiracy is finished !

Yada yada Bluestreak. Yada yada 2 men in black. Yada yada Nuclear blah.

There is zero proof for any of it, What are you hoping to achieve here ?
Are you expecting someone to come to the thread with new evidence or something ?

People here are like dogs with bones. They just will not let go.

Why dont you just repeat it all again eh, Maybe you will get a different result, Maybe ! But i garuntee you will end up with exactly what you have now where this case is concerned..........Fuck All.

Let it lay ffs.
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 03:49 PM   #47
geewhizz
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,771
Default

The Cumbrian spaceman thingy is definitely a picture of the back of a male.

It's soo obvious if you look at the elbow.

Very eerie photo though.
geewhizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 03:50 PM   #48
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

After a wee bit more digging i stumbled across this very revealing piece of information, again it involves UFO researcher Jenny Randles;Below are three important facts that need consideration of the significance they hold to this particular case;



1;"There is a letter in the Public Records Office in Kew, London uncovered by ufologist Jenny Randles which is dated 1964 December 29th referring to the Cumberland Spaceman by the Ministry of Defence (MOD). In it are references by the Department of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI) of an investigation into the matter".

2;" Another letter there dated 1964 June 15th is from a reporter enquiring about the aborted launch and the film in question which shows an extraordinary object hovering nearby that is 'impossible to miss'. A response to this letter from the MOD informs the reporter that he should contact them if he wishes to view the film".

3;"Mysteriously, in the series of film canisters holding the Blue Streak missile launches, one is missing. The missing canister is the film of the launches for the week beginning "SUNDAY,MAY 23,1964;

link; http://www.ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 04:33 PM   #49
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

Good info jamesc.

I think this guy is still active today...







Video: ALIEN ALERT: ASHTAR IN SOUTH AMERICA??!!


Note the similar appearance of a 'hood' draping down the entity's upper back in both images.

Last edited by size_of_light; 20-07-2011 at 04:35 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 04:35 PM   #50
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belch View Post
Yawnzzzz.

Donkies years ago, No proof of nothing if anything at all, Toy on a stick.

What are you hoping to prove now? Are you hoping that the film will suddenly appear and that it will seal the case ?
Its old hat ! Its done ! There is nothing more to investigate ! This conspiracy is finished !

Yada yada Bluestreak. Yada yada 2 men in black. Yada yada Nuclear blah.

There is zero proof for any of it, What are you hoping to achieve here ?
Are you expecting someone to come to the thread with new evidence or something ?

People here are like dogs with bones. They just will not let go.

Why dont you just repeat it all again eh, Maybe you will get a different result, Maybe ! But i garuntee you will end up with exactly what you have now where this case is concerned..........Fuck All.

Let it lay ffs.

As i said i will be the one who decides when ,where ,how,why and when i decide to have a finale view on this case, not you or your immature outbursts or anyone else will say what i can or can not hold on this case. Jenny Randles has proved beyond a doubt that some film was held back from public records and that in here interview with Templeton found him to be sincere and truthful;

I have offered Jenny Randles as one who i would listen to over you, she has at least dug deeper and uncovered MOD docs that show that they considered the aborted rocket launch and the Solway firth case strange enough to investigate;Without resorting to a" Yada yada Bluestreak. Yada yada 2 men in black. Yada yada Nuclear blah" kind of mentality i would say that this case holds enough mysteries to form a genuine unknown level of high strangeness;

On the film suddenly appearing and solving this case ,yes that is part of it but until we actually know what's on the film then i guess we will never really know and on that note until we do see that film,then this case remains for now,UNRESOLVED;

Was it not you who first raised the notion of the film and if you would care to take a closer and deeper study of the cases i have highlighted on my thread named "THE CHRONICLE UFO DIRECTORY THREAD"you would probably have to concede that "the bones" on that thread and the cases covered are well worth not letting go but needed exposure to show that not every thing is considered fake;

If i find more circumstantial evidence on this case then it will be posted on this thread, for things have a habit of turning up when you least expect the to and UFO cases are well known for that;:cool;So far know one has proved beyond a doubt that what we see in that picture is a puppet on a stick;There have been studies of this picture in trying to find out the measurements of this individual based on the distance from the girls head to the horizon , will post these findings later but for now in my perception this case remains unsolved;
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 04:39 PM   #51
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Forgot to add this;

Not long afterwards the editor of the Cumberland News newspaper contacted Jim and asked if he could borrow the negative to send a copy out to Australia. Apparently the photograph had appeared in the press there and staff working at the Woomera test range area in Southern Australia had seen it. Jim was told that the day after he took his photograph, a Blue Streak space rocket was due to be launched from Woomera in Australia.

The countdown was postponed when two automatic survey camera had independently spotted two large figures in the firing area during the countdown phase. They were very similar in appearance to Jim's mysterious visitor. At the time of the launch, the photograph had not reached Australia and the staff had no knowledge of the bizarre image.

The Woomera missile test range was run by Group Captain Tom Dalton-Morgan from 1959-1963 and he came forward with his own story.Prior to the test firing of an earlier "Blue Streak" rocket, observers stationed 100 miles down range called to tell Tom that there was a "light" heading his way at incredible speed, towards restricted air space.

Tom and several scientists watched as the light circled the facility, then shot away and vanished. He remarked that he "could not conceive of any plane or missile that was able to perform the maneuvers seen by my team". He said UFOs were frequently seen in the area and that in 1964 they had aborted the launch of another test when a "white being" was seen on the automatic security cameras.


Link;http://www.ufologie.net/htm/solwayfirth64.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 05:00 PM   #52
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Good info jamesc.

I think this guy is still active today...







Video: ALIEN ALERT: ASHTAR IN SOUTH AMERICA??!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbref_gkF3k

Note the similar appearance of a 'hood' draping down the entity's upper back in both images.
i.e:


Last edited by size_of_light; 20-07-2011 at 05:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 05:33 PM   #53
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Another interesting parallel is that in both cases the witnesses didn't see the entity directly.

The Solway Firth alien only appeared when the photo was developed. The girls who recorded the "Ashtar in South America" video could only see the figure on the screen of their cellphone.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 08:13 PM   #54
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

Retards.

When all else fails bring out the pixelated pictures of FUCK ALL.

SOL, that is pure bubbleheadedness.

Out!
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2011, 08:34 PM   #55
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belch View Post
Retards.

When all else fails bring out the pixelated pictures of FUCK ALL.

SOL, that is pure bubbleheadedness.

Out!
As seen in the dailymotion clip jamesc posted, it was demonstrated with official documents that the Solway Firth case was of strong interest to the government of the day. More subjectively, but no less convincing in my view, is the interview with the guy who took the photo. It reveals him to be a straight-shooter telling the truth about the picture and what happened to him with the government agents afterwards.

The 'Avatar in South America' footage bears none of the usual, obviously staged hallmarks of a faked video and I think the movements of the strange figure in it have an eerie, 'ethereal' quality to them.

Since there are noticeable similarities between the figures in both cases - which pixellation has no bearing on - I'd suggest you're the one who's being bubbleheaded about all this.

Last edited by size_of_light; 21-07-2011 at 11:25 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2011, 07:44 AM   #56
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

Here's some interesting screen captures from an ABC Australia documentary on the Woomera Test Range, focusing on the specific Blue Streak missile launch that Solway Firth-type aliens allegedly caused to be aborted.

The program doesn't refer to the alien incident at all, but does mention the aborted launch, with a timeframe that closely matches the documents Jenny Randles uncovered. According to Randles there was a missing film canister of the launches for the week beginning Sunday, May 23, 1964.


Since the above image of the maiden launch was available to be used by the documentary-makers (as opposed to having gone missing), and depicts the rocket 20 hours before it's scheduled blast-off, it suggests that this footage was from the canister after the one that has vanished and was taken sometime just following the appearance of the aliens on the launch pad, but before the decision was made to abort.


"Then we got the news that the rocket firing was to be delayed"...




June 5th, the date of the re-scheduled launch, minus those "3 days later", means the launch would have originally been scheduled to take place on June 1st or 2nd.

The missing film canister was said to be for the week May 23rd - May30th, so you can see that this all fits together nicely.


"That first test went way off course..."


"They blew it up and it came down four hundred miles short of the lakes..."


"It made our earlier efforts somewhat futile."


Why did the first rocket go so far off course? Alien intervention, perhaps? The official explanation for the failure was "uncontrollable oscillations during final phase of burn due to fuel sloshing in tanks" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_(missile), but given that the launch was initially aborted due to interference with the rocket by these mysterious figures, there has to be a strong possibility they had something to do with the failure.


Above is an overview of the launch site when Blue Streak 2 was (successfully) re-fired several months later.


Presumably, this is the actual area where the Solway Firth-type aliens were seen walking around.

Video: The Blue Streak Rocket launches in Australia (1964)

Last edited by size_of_light; 21-07-2011 at 03:18 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2011, 03:22 PM   #57
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Here's some interesting screen captures from an ABC Australia documentary on the Woomera Test Range, focusing on the specific Blue Streak missile launch that Solway Firth-type aliens allegedly caused to be aborted.

The program doesn't refer to the alien incident at all, but does mention the aborted launch, with a timeframe that closely matches the documents Jenny Randles uncovered. According to Randles there was a missing film canister of the launches for the week beginning Sunday, May 23, 1964.


Since the above image of the maiden launch was available to be used by the documentary-makers (as opposed to having gone missing), and depicts the rocket 20 hours before it's scheduled blast-off, it suggests that this footage was from the canister after the one that has vanished and was taken sometime just following the appearance of the aliens on the launch pad, but before the decision was made to abort.


"Then we got the news that the rocket firing was to be delayed"...




June 5th, the date of the re-scheduled launch, minus those "3 days later", means the launch would have originally been scheduled to take place on June 1st or 2nd.

The missing film canister was said to be for the week May 23rd - May30th, so you can see that this all fits together nicely.


"That first test went way off course..."


"They blew it up and it came down four hundred miles short of the lakes..."


"It made our earlier efforts somewhat futile."


Why did the first rocket go so far off course? Alien intervention, perhaps? The official explanation for the failure was "uncontrollable oscillations during final phase of burn due to fuel sloshing in tanks" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_(missile), but given that the launch was initially aborted due to interference with the rocket by these mysterious figures, there has to be a strong possibility they had something to do with the failure.


Above is an overview of the launch site when Blue Streak 2 was (successfully) re-fired several months later.


Presumably, this is the specific area where the Solway Firth-type aliens were seen walking around.

Video: The Blue Streak Rocket launches in Australia (1964)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEWBw...eature=related
Nicely put together post size_of_light, good info there ,i think Randles was on to something but then came up against a brick wall in the form of the missing canister;
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2011, 04:25 PM   #58
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

If you look at the second picture there are at least 3 shapeshifting alien/spacemen figures. There are 2 to the right of the rocket. 1 has its arm by its side and another arm on its fat belly as it looks to the ground. The 2nd is next to it and is levitating, these 2 entities seem to be wearing capes.
The 3rd is standing to the right of the searchlite. Its is humanoid but if you look it has a very small head and it is very tall. This is in turn talking to 2 smaller figures just to the right. These look like "Grey" aliens.

Im suprised you have not mentioned all the UFO's flying around that missile in the second to last picture aswell.

Last edited by belch; 21-07-2011 at 04:26 PM.
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2011, 04:37 PM   #59
size_of_light
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,816
Default

You should have held onto that inane and misplaced sarcasm a little while longer, belch.

I'm about to post some enhancements of how I think the face might look ( ! )
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2011, 04:47 PM   #60
belch
Senior Member
 
belch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

Are you denying that there are aliens and or shape shifting entities in picture 2 ?

And there is no "Face" on any of the pics. There is only Blurrrr!
belch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 AM.