Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

TIME TRAVEL: Strong evidence or major hoax???

page: 4
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JustJoe
 




The guy is most certainly out of place for the 40s...Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure sunglasses were not as popular back then and most likely would have had a more regular glasses look, as in like a pair of spectacles. Plus he is wearing a shirt with a screen print on it.


Someone has pointed out the "logo" in his t-shirt, but IMO isn't a logo, is most likely a letter embroidered in the tissue. That's why I left it away of this discussion.




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
There's a guy by the name of Doctor David Anderson. He specializes in Time-Control tech. Look him up. I'll give you all his website.

www.andersoninstitute.com...

(Also I can't help but think of the movie, De Ja-Vu, with Denzel Washington. Damn good movie. I loved it.)



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


the 'time travellers' left hand has a glove, but his right hand is not his hand, it's from the man behind him in yellow, and as no glove. No one wears one glove.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sstark
No one wears one glove.



Michael Jackson did








[edit on 24/3/10 by blupblup]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I knew that was coming



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
i see 2 re-occuring problems in this thread, the first is the "logo" on the shirt. i dont think that is a logo or a letter but a sweater with a charlie brown type design in the middle /\/\/\/\/\/\ most likely going all the way around, and his jacket is just open showing part of it.

the second problem somebody spoke on briefly in the first page and that is the confusion between most poeple's idea of time/event lines VS moving through space really fast.

think of it this way, if you had a portal that could send you from where your standing, to a place 1 light-year away, and it gets you there in...24 hours. when you come back (assuming you turn around and go right back through the portal). you will have aged 2 days, however 2 years will have gone by on earth.

this creates a "time debt" illusion.

i think time is relative to movement/speed through gravity(nearest mass).

the variables are how fast you can move VS your own mass VS nearest Mass.

we probably do it in small immeasurable ways everyday. immeasurable because we are all congregated around the same huge mass(Earth), and are all of similar mass's (when compared to earth) and all move at the same speed due to gravity.

if you or i were to somehow un-mass ourselves, earth would go flying by and we would just be left floating there. everybody on earth would then from that perspective be flying into the future . or from earths perspective youd be aging backwards at the rate earth is moving. when in reality it just seems that way because earth is moving and has mass.

perspective of time changes as the factors change.

i think.

::edit to add:: theres 2 kinds of "time". "OUR time" which we measure by orbit. and "REAL time" which should be measured by light, seeing as how light is massless (control) and it moves (measure).

[edit on 24-3-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ucalien
reply to post by JustJoe
 




The guy is most certainly out of place for the 40s...Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure sunglasses were not as popular back then and most likely would have had a more regular glasses look, as in like a pair of spectacles. Plus he is wearing a shirt with a screen print on it.


Someone has pointed out the "logo" in his t-shirt, but IMO isn't a logo, is most likely a letter embroidered in the tissue. That's why I left it away of this discussion.


Ergh.

While it all looks new to anyone born after 1970 or so, to anyone born before that time, there is nothing at all unusual about the photo. The artifacts you see are part of the film process (not as good as today) and the medium (black and white, high contrast) and the camera.

The 'wings' on the eyeglasses are the shadows on the guy's face. Look at the other shadows on his face -- very dark. And no, playing with the contrast on this one won't help because of the very strong contrast on the photo (deliberately chosen so it would reproduce well in a newspaper. News photos are higher contrast than polaroid/hobbyist photos.)

The "logo" on his shirt *IS* embroidered. He's a varsity letterman, and that's a "letter sweater."

The camera is the right size and shape for an upper end hobbyist camera (a semi-serious photographer.

The watch is a modern object... given that the Chinese are notorious for faking fossils and other things (big howl in the paleontological news and in the archaeological news and art world when this faking came to light a few years ago), I'm going to vote for induced patina and "planted" or deliberate fake.

Grave goods in a tomb (which is fairly climate controlled) don't deteriorate THAT quickly. Take a look at gold work from Egyptian tombs (thousands of years older) or metal work (the gold jaguars) from MesoAmerica.

Plus, silver turns black (oxydizes) and doesn't get that color. Gold doesn't develop a patina like that at all. Bronze will turn greenish. The patina's all wrong for a metal object that's only 400 years old.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 




Originally posted by sstark

No one wears one glove.


I swear for my life I thought in MJ BEFORE to see your pics.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerMan
 




i see 2 re-occuring problems in this thread, the first is the "logo" on the shirt. i dont think that is a logo or a letter but a sweater with a charlie brown type design in the middle /\/\/\/\/\/\ most likely going all the way around, and his jacket is just open showing part of it.


I DIDN'T highlight his T-Shirt and I DIDN'T mention the "logo" on it. IMO it's just a letter or some graphic embroidered on the fabric tissue. I LEFT this statement that ALREADY was made in another thread, OUT of this discussion.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Very interesting. I want to point out that I read before that 10:10 on new watches is the norm; it's done on purpose for whatever reason. I don't know if someone had mentioned that yet, but I thought it might be good to know. Could mean the "time-traveler's watch" was newer, or not at all. Interesting though, we need answers! lol



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 




The 'wings' on the eyeglasses are the shadows on the guy's face. Look at the other shadows on his face -- very dark. And no, playing with the contrast on this one won't help because of the very strong contrast on the photo (deliberately chosen so it would reproduce well in a newspaper. News photos are higher contrast than polaroid/hobbyist photos.)


The wings in his goggles aren't shadows. They perform a perfect 45° angle with the lens frame. Assuming it could be REALLY a shadow cast, however they don't match with the design of of the frame. It seems like that side wings of '80s welding goggles.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
2.bp.blogspot.com...


that is all I have to contribute to this post...


This has been said a billion times probably but even if you did time travel, you would not be in the same universe if you decided to travel back to your present day. Involves chaos theory and physics concepts I honestly do not feel like getting into detail with.


[edit on 24-3-2010 by fordrew]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ucalien
 


I wish I could say I see something odd in the pic of the guy with sunglasses but honestly there is nothing odd about him at all. He's a young man in his letter sweater, sure his hair is a bit messy but hey, who has perfect hair all the time?? not me for sure and If I had a head of nice wavey hair like he does I would be showing those locks off for sure!

and the sunglasses? nothing odd about them at all, people have been styling the cool lenses for a long long time. We like to think that only people from our era could look that cool
but its not true, sometimes our Dads and Grandpas looked cool too (afterall how else did they woo Mom/Grandma?).

Burden of proof is on the OP and I've not seen anything that make me go "OMG time traveler!", now if he had an Ipod...

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Helmkat]

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Helmkat]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by williegreen
So we are advanced enough to send a time traveler back in time but not smart enough to put him in an outfit that wouldn't cause him to stand out? I mean come on, does that look like a scientist involved with top secret science projects? Bet if we had a wide angle shot we would see Bill and Rufus waiting by the phone booth ready to keep on their excellent adventure.


That is the thing that gets me!

Who the heck is anyone in 2010 to say someone from the 40s does not fit into a picture when the other people in the picture do not seem to think anything of it? What would be more of a spectacle to you? A photograph of a guy who appears to have strange clothes or a guy standing in a crowd with you that looks from the future?

These threads are becoming a complete waste. No matter what, there is no logic in the premise of this thread or behind the theories on those pics.

Here is the conversation I think the OP believes took place.

-We are going to send you back in time but you have to be super careful. If anyone figures out we have time travel and anything happens to you, it could completely undo all of reality.

-There are tons of places to get the right clothes from that time period so I better go get some so I fit in, right?

-Nah, just go. I mean it is more than all important that no one figure it out but just grab a cardigan and button it at the bottom, that should do.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The photo of the guy in dark glasses and funky camera, has been discussed already on ATS.

I've done some digging into the 'ring watch', and apparently a of today, you can't get a working ring/finger analogue watch under 3.5mm thick, this thing looks about 2mm thick.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the ring and the 'guy' may not be from either the past, or present, but our future?

According to Chinese reports, the ring watch is approx 100 years, old.

Well, as we cannot make a working mechanical watch that thin and delicate even now, perhaps the tomb has not been visited 'yet'...if you catch my drift.

Paradoxical, i know..but time travel is a funky concept to get your head around.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ucalien

I don't think the both sunglasses have the same type of lens, despite they are black lens, but one seems to have reflexive mirrored lens and the other no. I may be wrong...


If you think that these pictures do not prove anything because you "believe" the glasses have a different type of lens, then why would you post pictures of glasses that do not even have a similar frame and expect those to prove something? Just asking?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


As a scientist i must say your post were done with alot of charisma. On the other hand, everything you are writing is absolutely rubbish. And that is a FACT,and you cant argue facts.

But as a opinion,its ok.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Nice thread sir. I am a scientist and i can tell you that the pictures and evidence you have put through here is something we have studied for a long time. We have per date no clear facts that time travel actually can be made with our knowledge, but we believe that it is something that we can be able to do in the future.

In outer space time doesnt exist, "time" is only a phrase we humans made to understand and keep track of things in a easier way.

But in outer space,there is very possible to actually edit "time",with the right knowledge and technology.

When it comes to different dimensions,that is something we have proven as a fact. Advance knowledge for the "everyday man",but its out there.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Risen
I brought this up in the other thread, but i think it bears repeating.

In the 40's it wasn't nearly as common for people to wear company logos or any kind of advertisement on their shirts. Unless this guy had his own silkscreen and really liked the letter M, that stands out as the most unusual thing about him.

The way we all do it so freely now might cause some people to gloss over that detail, but people weren't as naive about using their bodies as billboards back then. It's very much a recent thing.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by Risen]


Do you mean in the same thread where people posted links to shirts and sweaters from the 40s with giant college logos on them such as "W" and "M?"

Would that be the thread you brought that up in?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
reply to post by sstark
 


He has gloves on? It looks like he may have one glove on, which would be on his left hand. His right hand you can see his thumb if you actually look at the picture. Not that it matters though, I don't see what relevance having gloves on has to him possibly being a 'time traveler'...


Are you not even paying attention? It has clearly been stated over and over again that no one had sunglasses, gloves, or logos in the 40s. It does not matter that people have offered up similar glasses and shirts from the 40s and we all know that gloves were around in the 40s but hey, why do you want to stomp all over nonsense fantasies with your logic like that?





new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join