TIME TRAVEL: Strong evidence or major hoax???

Look, I don't care if he's wearing a tutu and tophat, it doesn't prove anything! It's just a guy who is kind of out of place in that one picture, why does time travel have to be involved!!!

reply to post by Bablock


Right on man!!! S&F for you!

RA and CC are the godfathers of RTS games.

But seriously, time travel really has no positive or beneficial use so why anyone would try is beyond me. Like I said, if it doesn't happen one way, it will another way.

This is ridiculous, if anyone believe that is a time traveler I feel sorry for them.

The camera and glasses are explainable and nothing unusual.

Wonderful thread, for waking up. There's something familiar about one of the pictures, but anyway. This is very important, and no wonder its got so many skeptics on it, big taboo subject.

I did note the 10 10. They'll be all in their underground dumbs by then. And first I imagine there will be some event, some 9/11 type thing, to shut down the transportation so they will have all the seats for themselves to try and get out of dodge.

Its time to wake up!

Ive only read a couple of pages so these points could well have been addressed already, but...

Assuming this guy was a 'time traveller', and wasnt Marty Mcfly.. then why would he be wearing clothes that are supposedly not of that era? Bit odd to just wear your normal clothes, especially when the guy is obviously wandering around in public. Wouldnt you try and fit in with the people around you?

As for the finger watch.. as there's not much info on it its a bit hard to pass judgement. What I will say thought is that Id be wary of taking what a group of chinese tomb raiders say too seriously. Im sure there's some lovely tomb raiders out there... but its not really an occupation that screams 'Im an incredibly moral, respectful human being.. you can trust what I say 110%', is it?

I find this photograph fascinating. Thanks for this thread. The guy's glasses and camera intrigue me too... but also his haircut, his implied demeanor... and the thing that really gets me is... he's wearing a t-shirt with a big logo on it. I can't say for sure, but I don't think they had t-shirts with printed or screened logos back then. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Being a long time Photoshop boy, I had to see what I could see. The first thing that struck me was that it came up as a color image, but it's possible it was just saved in colorspace rather than grayscale, as I could barely do anything with it at all. That's likely what happened. Anyway, my result is below. Nothing added, but used contrast and shadow brightening to try and get that camera out more.

It's been suggested that the the guy's been 'shopped in... and that may very well be, as I noted like other posters above that his position in the crowd is a bit strained. I am drawn to the fellow immediately behind our boy's neck... it looks like his face is stuffed into the dude in front's left shoulder, as if our man was just stuck in over him as it doesn't look too weird until you're gazing hard as we are. Very strange. Doesn't feel right at all.

And I'm also still very intrigued by that old watch story...

By the way... obviously, the whole point of 'shopping someone in is to make it seamless. It is not difficult pixel-wise, just quite time consuming and tedious. The lighting and exposure matching is the place where I catch most out. This is quite well done, quite well. Unless the dude was in fact there.

I'm going to keep an eye on this as time permits... like I said... fascinating!

Here's my work, hope it fits. Don't flame me too badly. Thanks.

Originally posted by PixelDuster
the thing that really gets me is... he's wearing a t-shirt with a big logo on it. I can't say for sure, but I don't think they had t-shirts with printed or screened logos back then. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Consider this no t-shirt existing at the time thing put to rest then.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4356f294334.jpg[/atsimg]

Just out of curiosity. Would any of the people that are so in awe of the pic in the OP like to guess when this picture was taken?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fe15b50892a.jpg[/atsimg]

I will give you a hint, the entire family is made up of time travelers.

How about this one?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bdf08079e4d9.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

It really bothers me that all of the focus in this thread is on the photo. There is much more to discuss. Yes, the watch has been debunked, but not nearly as thoroughly as the photo. And there are other things to talk about here too, all of which are being ignored in favor of that damn photo.

Originally posted by Solasis
And there are other things to talk about here too, all of which are being ignored in favor of that damn photo.

Such as...?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Um, seriously? Go to the OP. Look at everything before the photograph of Albert. Look how little text there is on Capt. Sunglasses; look at how much text there is in the post.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Solasis]

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Um, seriously? Go to the OP. Look at everything before the photograph of Albert. Look how little text there is on Capt. Sunglasses; look at how much text there is in the post.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Solasis]

You mean the opinions and conjecture put forth by the OP? If there is something in there worth discussing, stop bickering with me and get to it.

I thought the title of the thread was "Strong evidence or major hoax???" so I was addressing what was purported to be evidence. Please enlighten me.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I already put in my two cents. Several times over the course of the thread. Every instance was ignored, except when I suggested someone with more knowing than me say something about that watch.

As to your "conjecture and opinions" crap -- Why, yes, there is conjecture and opinion in there. There are also brief discussions of physics and interpretations of general relativity which have been one hundred percent ignored. There's also some stuff about the Philadelphia experiment and all the alleged stuff which followed from it. Has that been discussed to death? God yes. So much so that, yes, I rolled my eyes when I got to that part of the OP. But I dont' recall ANY discussion of it in this thread. I don't even recall any links to discussions!* Do I have anything to say about these things? Not really so much. But I am here to see other people talk about all that sort of stuff, and throw my hat in when I have something to say.

I'm mostly ticked off because there was JUST a thread about this photo, and that photo was only half of what in particular the OP wanted to talk about -- the other half not being debunked until well far into the post, and that one has been buried.

*Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for links to this -- I can find that stuff easily. this whole post is more an indictment of the argument style of basically everyone in this thread: Lock onto one thing out of nearly a dozen, and drive it into the ground, ignoring all others.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I already put in my two cents. Several times over the course of the thread. Every instance was ignored, except when I suggested someone with more knowing than me say something about that watch.

As to your "conjecture and opinions" crap -- Why, yes, there is conjecture and opinion in there. There are also brief discussions of physics and interpretations of general relativity which have been one hundred percent ignored. There's also some stuff about the Philadelphia experiment and all the alleged stuff which followed from it. Has that been discussed to death? God yes. So much so that, yes, I rolled my eyes when I got to that part of the OP. But I dont' recall ANY discussion of it in this thread. I don't even recall any links to discussions!* Do I have anything to say about these things? Not really so much. But I am here to see other people talk about all that sort of stuff, and throw my hat in when I have something to say.

Did you read the entire OP? You are complaining that no one is discussing the setup when the OP is clearly addressing examples of PROOF OR HOAXES. The thread is not about the preamble in the OP. You can tell by the title as well as the entire text of the OP. I would suggest that if you want to discuss those things, go for it. You have no right to demand that I do.

I'm mostly ticked off because there was JUST a thread about this photo, and that photo was only half of what in particular the OP wanted to talk about -- the other half not being debunked until well far into the post, and that one has been buried.

Then do something about it. Attacking me for pointing out that there were t-shirts printed in the 40s is helping how?

*Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for links to this -- I can find that stuff easily. this whole post is more an indictment of the argument style of basically everyone in this thread: Lock onto one thing out of nearly a dozen, and drive it into the ground, ignoring all others.

No, you are just mistaken that is all. Please go back and read the OP again. While there is a lot of information about the idea of time travel, that purpose of the thread is to address items that can be deemed proof or hoax. That is what the OP is addressing and that is all I have addressed. Two examples were posted and I have addressed both of them. If you do not like the way I post, I am truly sorry but if a thread is lacking something you desire then it is your duty to bring it, not mine.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Okay, I'm tired of this now. I've realized to a certain extent that you're right -- but I'm still disappointed by the huge unevenness in the discussion between the watch and Albert.

But more importantly, I think you need to calm down a little. I didn't attack you at all. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular when I made that post.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Okay, I'm tired of this now. I've realized to a certain extent that you're right -- but I'm still disappointed by the huge unevenness in the discussion between the watch and Albert.

But more importantly, I think you need to calm down a little. I didn't attack you at all. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular when I made that post.

Sorry I guess I took it that way because you were complaining about people talking about the picture when I had just posted something about that picture. I hope you can see how that looks very much like you were addressing me. The nature of the post was less than "Thanks for putting that part of the mystery to rest for us so we can move on to the rest of the OP now."

I hope we can all move forward now.

So after examining the picture of the traveler something hit me. Could it be possible that the young man in the photograph is wearing a Marvel comic T shirt. Captain Marvel and Marvel comics grew ever so popular in the 1940's due to the significant event of World War II. The M could very represent Marvel comics or the popular 1940's Captian Marvel.

I tried searching for Vintage 1940's T shirt pictures on the internet but to no avail.

Not trying to down play your post but when crediting a subject i first try to discredit.

Do we really need another topic on the dam 40's picture, it looks totally normal to me, his glasses just have wings on you can clearly see it. As for the camera, nothing strange there either. However because of the poor quality of the pic "People see what they want to see" Look with your eyes, and not you mind and you will see there is nothing to see here.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by PixelDuster
the thing that really gets me is... he's wearing a t-shirt with a big logo on it. I can't say for sure, but I don't think they had t-shirts with printed or screened logos back then. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Consider this no t-shirt existing at the time thing put to rest then.

Thanks for clearing that up. Not surprised, was just wondering.

More fun with Photoshop to get us all going... sigh.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by PixelDuster]

reply to post by Halfburnt


Well, Captain Marvel's got a thunderbolt on his chest, so it's not that. I don't know about Marvel Comics, though; don't think they had that sort of stylized M as a logo.

Marvel Comics was founded in 1939, but at the time was called Timely Comics. In the 1950's it became Atlas Comics. It did not become Marvel Comics until 1961 with the launching of The Fantastic Four and other comics (the so called Silver Age of comics) - basically once Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko started doing everything there.

All that being said, I don't think it's an anachronistic Marvel Comics tee-shirt on some time traveler. I think it's probably a letter "M," but signifying something else. My first guesses would be University of Michigan or Michigan State University.

Oh, one thing. That big, enhanced blow up of the photo pretty much proves to me that the camera is a pretty standard one of the day with an accordion lens mount. Notice how small the little, silver lens ring is at the front compared to it's mount?

Just some college kid with his camera out to see the event.