Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Project Moon Shadow, Randy Cramer and the Templeton Spaceman

Yes, I have hit a dry spell. There really isn’t anything new to say about Curse of Oak Island as they chase the Knights Templar and other false leads. They haven’t found anything significant but you have to give them credit for keeping this thing going for so long with so little to show for it.

But, in the last couple of days I have been asked a couple of questions and saw a picture of a “spaceman” on the Internet, so I thought I might combine a couple of these things. I suppose I could break it up into a couple of new posts, but there just isn’t that much to say about any of this that hasn’t been said before.

I was asked about NASA’s, or maybe the US’s “secret space program,” a ridiculous concept that belongs right up there is with the contactees of the 1950s and the gunman on the Grassy Knoll.

First, there was this nonsense of Project Moon Shadow, which apparently recruited kids as young as four to introduce them to the military operations on Mars and in space. Sounds like Ender Wiggin, recruited to fight the “buggers” in the science fiction novel, Ender’s Game. Anyway, Randy Cramer, who originally came out as Captain Kaye, said that he would taken from his bed for days or weeks at a time and then returned to his bed within minutes of his disappearance so it was never apparent that he had been gone. At 17, he was “involuntarily recruited” (I think the real term is “drafted”) to help protect five civilian settlements on Mars. Never mind that there is no corroborating evidence for this, that we’ve had spacecraft (as have other nations) in orbit around Mars for decades and we’ve had rovers on Mars since the 20th century. There is nothing seen there that would suggest any of this… oh, wait, I forgot, NASA and the other world space programs routinely delete anything that would suggest this is true which is why we don’t see it. It is a secret after all.

Nope. I don’t believe any of this, and while the stories being told aren’t even good science fiction. I’m not sure why anyone would accept any of this as true, but apparently there are many who do. If you’re interested in these tales as just stories, fine, but if you believe this nonsense you are in need of some professional help.

Solway Spaceman aka the Templeton Spaceman
Second, on one of the news feeds, was the Solway Spaceman or the Cumberland Spaceman. The picture was taken back in the 1960s by Jim Templeton so it is also known as the Templeton Spaceman. Anyway, he didn’t see the figure in the viewfinder of the camera as he took a picture of his daughter. It looked like someone in a space suit complete with visor and this puzzled Templeton. He took the photograph to the police, who did investigate but didn’t find a solution that was satisfactory.

British UFO investigator, David Clarke, has proposed what seems like the best solution. According to him, Templeton’s wife, Annie, who was wearing a light blue dress and had short dark hair, wandered into the frame, unseen by Templeton. The camera viewfinder only showed about 70% of what would be captured on film. With her back to the camera, and her light blue dress washed out by the bright sun, it is possible that it was her in the picture. According to Clarke, other pictures taken at the same time, showed the dress in the same washed out color and the haircut that suggests some sort of helmet.

To me, this very plausible explanation makes sense. I mean, if there had been a spaceman wandering around the park that day, wouldn’t there have been other reports, and possibly other pictures. Looking at it with the thought it might be a woman with her back to the camera, you can see that as well.


The problem here, with both these stories is that one is absurd and the second is an optical illusion. Both have solutions. One you don’t believe because there is no reliable, corroborative evidence and the other we know what was seen. Yet, both of them have popped up again, this week and we shouldn’t have to deal with either of them. As I have said in the past of many other UFO cases, these two should be relegated to footnotes if not forgotten completely. That, of course, will never happen and in ten years I’ll probably have to revisit these reports to explain all this again.

17 comments:

starman said...

I can't believe Templeton wouldn't have known was wife was in the field of view, or would've notified the authorities if he felt the odd figure could've been her.
From what I recall reading about the case, cattle nearby were all huddled in one place, "as if frightened by something" and the air seemed to have an electrical charge to it.
There have been many reports of UFOs or entities being noticed on photos only after they were taken. Sometimes entities are reported to appear out of nowhere and just vanish.

Moonman said...

"Yes, I have hit a dry spell."
Are you asking for people to offer you suggestions what to research?

If so, how about making sense of some old reports on the DTIC about early radar tracking by the Army of satellites. They mention UFOs and "flats".
"DOPLOC Observations of Reflection Cross Sections of Satellites"
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0259123
"Satellite-Induced Ionization Observed with the DOPLOC System"
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0265072
"Third Technical Summary Report Period 1 July 1959 - 1 July 1960 ARPA Satellite Fence
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/402078.pdf

KRandle said...

starman -

Because the viewfinder only showed 70% of what was in the frame... and have you every heard of photobomb?

Moonman -

No, don't need anything to investigate. Just haven't been inspired to write about anything. Just completed an update on my paper on Mantell.

cda said...

Why on earth would ANYONE ever suppose the oddity shown in the Templeton photo was a 'spaceman'? The reason, I think, was that the photo was taken near the launchpad of certain rockets that the UK were testing at the time, at an RAF base called Spadeadam, near Carlisle, in Cumbria.

For some reason, certain people assumed that because the incident occurred at or near a rocket site, the unknown 'visitor' shown on the photo was a space being from elsewhere spying on our rocket launches!

Amazing what these space visitors are up to, isn't it?

PS. Of course, that is exactly what the Roswell 'visitors' were doing, except that White Sands is a bit farther away from the 'crash' than Spadeadam was from Jim Templeton's visitor.

starman said...

Kevin,

I'd assume Templeton could tell the difference between his wife and a spaceman. :) Even if he couldn't, somehow, surely his wife would've told him "It was just me."

starman said...

Why would anyone suppose the being in the photo was a spaceman? First, had it been a human, Templeton or his wife would've almost certainly noticed him, and remembered him later instead of contacting authorities. Second, the appearance of a an odd aerial object or entity on a photo, after going unnoticed at the time the pic was taken, is fairly common in UFOlogy. Third, the phenomenon appears to take an interest in nuclear or rocket installations--look at Malmstrom.

cda said...

For the record, Spadeadam was only a site for 'static firing'. I believe the real 'lift off' firings of the Blue Streak rocket were carried out at the Woomera range in Australia. Therefore, if the space visitors were genuinely following the UK rocket launches we would expect them to be located somewhere near Woomera, rather than near Carlisle.

But this is, of course, debatable. It may well be that the spaceman, or spacemen, were confused over all this and didn't know where they ought to be to observe Blue Streak. Jim Templeton and his daughter would not have known this (all top secret at the time, you see).

I decline to speculate further.

RRRGroup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RRRGroup said...

Isn't there, online, CDA, a report that two unauthorized (alien) "spacemen" were spotted at the Woomera rocket facility at the same time Templeton was taking his photo?

RR

cda said...

RR:

Yes! I'd forgotten this. Clearly the 'spacemen' were confused and so had to be present at both launch sites. At last it all fits. Silly lapse on my part.

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edithkeeler said...

While, I certainly don't believe it was a spaceman, I'm not certain about the "Mrs Templeton explanation either. Firstly, if it was her, she appears to be wearing a hat, you can see the white outline on top of the dark area that would have to be her hair. It does somewhat resemble the "pill-box" hat which was fashionable in the late 50's and early 60s. Not sure if the "hat" theory was ever investigated, but it should have been fairly easy to determine, was she wearing a hat that day or not?
Where I have a problem with the theory though is the upper body. Mrs. Templeton must have been a body builder to have shoulders and an upper body this massive. Even if you allow for the possibility that wind is "puffing up" the dress, the way that the arms descend from the shoulders and the way the right one is being held out and away from the body, is typical of a large-muscled man who has to walk "cave-man" style because his shoulders are too big for his arms to fall straight down. As a woman myself, I can tell you, we just don't hold our arms this way. IMHO

starman said...

Why couldn't it have been a spaceman? Because aliens can't exist, or skeptics are too intimidating?
It's less likely it was Templeton's wife, or any human. Could she have appeared THAT unrecognizable, to her own husband and even herself, that they felt they should contact authorities? It's most likely some advanced technology produced the image of the figure without anyone seeing it at the time. As I wrote above, something strange seemed to be going on. Cattle were frightened by something and the air seemed to be electrically charged. And again, the appearance of a strange object or entity on film, only after the pic was taken, is not uncommon in UFOlogy.

albert said...

To be perfectly honest with you*, when I first saw the photo I thought of a hazmat suit:) The figure -does- seem to be facing away from the camera. Has anyone actually investigated this incident? Knowing the camera type and lens, height of the lens from ground level, approx. height of the girl, one could estimate the height of the figure. The figure seems awfully tall to me. If there are no details, then this incident will forever remain fodder for endless speculation.

--------
* Favorite phrase of a lawyer I used to work for.
. .. . .. --- ....

RRRGroup said...

Geezo, Christmas, fellows....

Google the case and you'll find several possible resolutions, one even an explanation as I see it.

Do some leg work (online even), you lazy guys....

RR

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don said...

Another fact about the camera is that it didn't have an auto-return mirror, which means the view through the viewfinder went black when the shutter was released.

The second photo referred to, the one with the woman in a blue dress is interesting (what I have of it I had to crop from a video). on the left side is a shadow that may be a person, which would mean there was a fourth person at the event. Also between that shadow and the subject appears evidence of a light leak. Considering the source of my jpg, I can't say if it is due to the lens or the light falling on the print in the video. It appears to me to be a light leak or some other flaw on the film.

re: Edithkeeler's comment about a pillbox hat (or maybe a tam or maybe a hoodie), it is also evident behind the head of the subject in the second photo. It at first seemed to me to be a reflection from her hair, but seeing it atop the 'spaceman' may mean it is something else, perhaps a head cover. The 'spaceman' may be wearing a knit sweater or coat and a hat or hood.

Without having the original negative or even a set of prints shot on that roll, we are unlikely to get anything out of the jpgs except guesses.

Regards,

Don