It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TIME TRAVEL: Strong evidence or major hoax???

page: 8
91
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The first pair of glasses was what i had in mind! but normal perscription lenses.




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ucalien
 


I was reading through to the end. You said perfectly matched with the ambient. To me the hairline does not look right, nor does there seem enough space for the person who is immediately behind him. He also seems to be very large.

No one at the point I had got to seems to have mentioned the T shirt. Not so common in the 40s and what was the M on it?

[edit on 25/3/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sahrhyce
If time travel is real, why aren't TPTB going back in time and killing the first person to ask "Why..."



Don't worry, we will be calling on you shortly.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ucalien
 


I was reading through to the end. You said perfectly matched with the ambient. To me the hairline does not look right, nor does there seem enough space for the person who is immediately behind him. He also seems to be very large.

No one at the point I had got to seems to have mentioned the T shirt. Not so common in the 40s and what was the M on it?

[edit on 25/3/2010 by PuterMan]


The shirt has been covered and explained in the other thread about this exact same picture here. As you can see, the OP of this thread had already been exposed to the out of place man and the watch in this other thread about the out of place man before starting this thread about the out of place man and the watch that he was reading about in the other thread. Following?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
To the OP: Given that you have given a lot of thought to the possibility of time travel and wanted to establish a thought provoking thread, why did you derail your own thread by posting dubious images as "evidence?" Why would someone wear an expensive Rolex ring watch on an excursion to ancient China? And then not notice when it fell off in a tomb? Why would someone travel back to 1940 and decide the most important event to observe and record was the opening of a bridge in Canada? I guess the Japanese occupation of Manchuria is just too boring to document, and nobody cares whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. If you dig through Charles Fort's work, you will find a treasure trove of archaeological anomalies to exploit without opening yourself to charges of "photoshopped." BTW, "Albert" looks exactly like someone who has spent the day hiking... especially in 1940 when those fleece sweaters were "in."



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
... especially in 1940 when those fleece sweaters were "in."


*ahem*

Those sweaters are still in as far as I'm concerned


Enough with the attacking on style - especially the stuff that'll never go out of fashion


-m0r



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Take two seconds to think about what you're proposing. Would a time traveller be so boneheaded as to go back in time, wearing clothing that is completely out of place, bearing technology that could completely upset the timeline? You honestly expect that a time traveller would just dismiss or overlook these things and would put no effort into avoiding anachronisms? He'd just walk around in the 1920s with a digital SLR camera and a wu-tang t-shirt, sure!

Now also consider: you claim you have proof of time travel. This "proof" is an old photograph showing a guy that seems out of place. That's it. That is literally all the evidence you have in this case. Are we to believe that nobody dressed out of place in the 1920s or that nobody ever photographed them? Ever hear of the beats? A single pair of sunglasses that do not appear to be the appropriate style for the time is evidence of time travel? I could think of a million more plausible explanations for those sunglasses that I would believe before I'd accept them as proof of time travel.

Maybe they were some foreign import model. Maybe the guy made them himself. Maybe they were actually quite popular and we simply don't have the abilitiy to look up every single piece of consumer clothing accessories that was ever manufactured in the 1920s! OR MAYBE IT WAS TIME TRAVEL HMMMMMMMMMM what do you think is most likely?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by wirehead]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Furthermore. The possibility of time travel is well-established in modern science. If you want to look into this, the term you're looking for is "closed timelike loop." Anything that travels through time would form a closed timelike loop. This is possible, according to the rules of general relativity. It isn't easy, however. You'd have to engineer gigantic (lightyears-long) rotating cylinders of neutron-star dense matter, or create a wormhole and accelerate one end to nearly the speed of light and cruise around the galaxy with it for a few years.

In all these cases, you'd never be able to travel back further than when the machine was switched on. Hawking and Penrose have also put some fairly strong constraints on the possibility in any case- you'd probably need "negative mass" which, as far as we know, doesn't exist.

Anyway, that's just what science has to say about it. Take it or leave it, I know most people on this board are either outright hostile toward science or simply can't be bothered to care about what it says.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
you people gotta be stupid



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ucalien
 


Of all the historic places and events you could go back to if TT was possible, and this guy goes back to the opening of a bridge?

Lets not be silly.

TT is not possible. The grandfather paradox would apply to all scenarios one way or another. What if this guy stood on someones foot while he was there and that person for some reason couldn't go out on a date that night with his future wife? Thus not getting married, having no kids etc. Surely that would change time?

Thats just one simple example. I'm sure others could be catastrophic.

And were are they now? Why have no time travellers revealed themselves?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
If you really do believe in time travel, wouldn't you be combing pictures of historic occasions looking for time travelling witnesses? But oh, they'd most likely go to the greatest lengths possible to make sure they DIDN'T stand out. But this does open an interesting avenue of research. Which people in your famous historical photos are the time travellers? Hmmmm



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Of all the historic places and events you could go back to if TT was possible, and this guy goes back to the opening of a bridge?


Maybe there was some important Butterfly Effect style event there which his presence prevented or caused. Or it could've been personal; maybe he had an ancestor who built the bridge, whose bridge-opening antics he desperately missed.


TT is not possible. The grandfather paradox would apply to all scenarios one way or another. What if this guy stood on someones foot while he was there and that person for some reason couldn't go out on a date that night with his future wife? Thus not getting married, having no kids etc. Surely that would change time?


You're making far too many assumptions. Just because certain behaviors in the past would cause trouble doesn't mean that time travel is impossible. Perhaps time doesn't work at all the way that you think it does. Perhaps the universe has some mechanism which we haven't observed or thought of beyond sci-fi for resolving grandfather paradoxes. Maybe grandfather paradoxes don't unravel reality for some reason, and he was actually trying to alter something. You make so many unjustified assumptions.


And were are they now? Why have no time travellers revealed themselves?


You already answered this; if your assumptions about what being in the past would change are correct, they CAN'T reveal themselves. It would devastate the timeline.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this guy is a time traveler at all. I just hate unjustified assumptions in this kind of debate.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Solasis]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


How can my assumptions be unjustified when the whole thing is speculative at best? It's just a theory remember.

As I said my example was a simple one off the top of my head. And there are many more reasons why TT isn't possible. And when I mean impossible I mean in the sense of time travellers walking among us. TT would only work on a viewing basis, watching on a video screen etc...

Or am I still being unjustifiable?

But of course your theories on TT could never be unjustified could they?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
double post sry

[edit on Thursday20102010-03-25T13:17:39-05:00pm311720103 by thesneakiod]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
and again

[edit on Thursday20102010-03-25T13:18:08-05:00pm311820103 by thesneakiod]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
and for some bizarre reason, again lol

[edit on Thursday20102010-03-25T13:18:44-05:00pm311820103 by thesneakiod]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


I don't have any theories on time travel. These theories are not particularly justified. But neither are your declarations that it's impossible. So far as you know, it wouldn't make sense. But the fact that you are making absolutist claims about possibility shows that you think that your evidence is wholly justified.

Most people here are saying "Maybe this is what's happening?" rather than "This is what's happening and anything else is impossible." A lot of them are probably thinking the latter, but they've at least got the sense not to claim it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
well, i guess the point was that we cannot make assumptions about a time traveler's motives or technical restrictions. maybe traveling back to a famous event is too risky to cause negative reprecussions. On the other hand, maybe it's impossible to have any negative effects on the past at all, since those effects would have been present in the past even before you built your time machine and went back, etc...

However, I don't think it's unjustified to think a time traveller wouldn't just come back wearing out of place clothes and with weird technology, but you can imagine counterexamples, say if his time traveling were an accident and he wasn't totally prepared.

Since we don't know anything about the technology, its restrictions and the culture that produced it, by definition, we really can't apply our restricted imaginations to reach conclusions about it. However, I frankly don't even believe it's possible in the sense that these people would have it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
you guys are just hatin cause you can't believe there was a guy in 1940 that looks cooler than you do now.
just kidding, but I have read that some scientists say it is impossible to travel back in time. And I think this must be the case, because if time travel were possible, it is just logical to think that someone would have come back in time and said "hey, I'm from the future. this is how you do it, the united states takes over the world in ____, etc." The only way it seems possible is if the people who travel in time are very careful not to be detected by others. this is believable, but I would expect a time to come, if it's possible, when normal people (or at least 1 person who deviates from the plan) go back in time and do something to show they traveled back in time.
Or maybe someone would have gone back in time and explained how to use electricity, or how to make a car. I know there is some evidence of that kind of stuff (I'm on ATS after all), but I just think the general public would somehow know time travel exists if it did



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lldd182
 


Yeah, but for all we know, going back in time and changing it would just split that universe off into a parallel universe. You really can't say what paradigm time travel would follow, and for that reason you can't use lack of evidence as evidence of absence.

Again, not that I believe any form of human time travel to arbitrary points in the past is even possible.




top topics



 
91
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join