I would like to post two diagrams on this subject that may be worthy of further investigation. Without the diagrams, the point I would like to alert you to does not come across quite as strongly. There is however no image URL for these but I have almost completed a YouTube Video that explains how these diagrams were created.

The diagrams show a very odd connection between 20 very powerful but unexplained explosions and "precession intersection areas". The latter relates to Einsteinian precession, which explains how Earth's orbit varies in relation to the Sun. The result is a pattern of intersections which is quite distinct and which I have tried to further explain in the 2nd diagram. This is necessary because even Wikipedia only has a very rough diagram of these intersection areas which is not correct. It appears that nobody has bothered to investigate these more thoroughly because it is believed that they are of no importance.

All 20 explosions fit the precession intersection pattern exactly. Because precession is directly related to the passage of time, this would appear to imply that there is a temporal link. Further research I have conducted links not only the positions in orbit to the precession intersection areas, but the events to actual sites which appear to be related to them. These sites are surprisingly less often the LHC, but appear to relate to SLAC and the ILC (yes, I know, of course it hasn't even been built yet... But if we are looking at temporal phenomena, we would be seeing the events, because it will be built.)

Perhaps I should leave it at that for this first post, because it is quite a psychological step to expect anyone to follow. This is only the first stage of my research. I am now working on a third stage, but I can't expect anyone to understand that if nobody even understands exactly how precession, the basis, actually works. If anyone would like to assist in pasting the two diagrams to this thread, please email me, I'd be happy to supply them.
Cheers, Tom

Hi, Sorry, but can't find the button to send a private message in this site. Oh well... Yes, that was what the video is about, it's so complicated however, trying to make it halfway understandable. The link is clear however. Of course those markers on the Barycentre diagram aren't where the events occurred, they are simply the dates and these show a link with Barycentre motion. As soon as I finish that vid, I'll post you the link. Oh, and scatterb rain strikes again... The marker for Tunguska hadn't been plotted yet. It's just about in the middle of the Solar disc. The text on the diagram was also a bit too hastily pasted, I have a better one now.. Even if some responses just confirm my favourite line from Monty Python, "..and I sure hope there's intelligent life out in space because there's sure as hell bugger all down here", I was only hoping for one or two intelligent ones anyway. I think I got one Cheers, Tom

If it had created a black hole big enough, we'd all be dead.

The typo problem strikes again... The diagram in that URL states "since the late 90s".... It's supposed to read "since the late 70s" of course, because that's whenthe Vela satellites were deployed. Without the Barycentre diagram the match of the 18 month period with so many impacts isn't clear. Only the relatively slow Barycentre movement matches the long phase of this event. Will try and get a new URL for that one somewhere else because it appears that Facebook deleted the "photo" for whatever reason. Looks like these new diagrams aren't creating much interest yet. Perhaps I need to put them in context with a short explanation. Cheers, Tom

Hi Elouina,
There hasn't been much interest in this thread, sadly. I've thought about going back to basics and presenting some of the more understandable pieces of evidence in a new way. Mabye I should try and post this as a new thread (once I've clocked up 20 posts), or maybe you might like to? What do you think?


Are we already experiencing Time Travel?

Of course most established physicists flatly deny this. This attitude however is based not on any scientific evidence whatsoever, but purely on the belief that the only type of time travel that will ever be possible, if any, is travel into the future. The reason for such an assumption is little more than an unwillingness to accept the nasty consequence of time travel in the other direction, i.e. into the past. That consequence is the indeed very disturbing "reverse causality" it would imply, in other words, events happening before they would be caused. The implications of this would be so horrendous that the mere possibility is simply ignored or ruled out. But can such simple, plain old bias still be called "science"? Just because scientists "don't like" something, it can't be true?

Because they can at best only accept the possibility of time travel into the future, and because, to our knowledge, experiments re this have not been conducted, it follows, if you believe their logic, that time travel has never occurred. But has it?

Ask yourself the following question: What would scientists from the future do to test theories of time travel? According to Einstein, we know that time itself is relative. Experiments until now however have concentrated mainly on "time dilation" and finding proof of this. Time dilation, the slowing of time in clocks travelling at high velocity, has been proven many times. Today, it's an accepted fact. Satellite scientists even have to factor this in for the correct operation of GPS systems these days. But what about not just the slowing of time, but of the complete transfer of matter? What would such experiments look like?

They would require huge amounts of energy. Just like the huge amounts of energy already available in the world's most powerful particle colliders and accellerators today. But what would actually happen, for example, to a particle of matter, that were transferred in time? Where exactly would it re-appear, be it in the future or in the past? Not in the same location, so much is certain.

This goes to the heart of our current lack of understanding of this entire area of future science. The problem is, established science simply doesn't have a clue. It's because the mechanism of transfer is not understood and experiments to test theories haven't even been conceived. At least, not yet.

So getting back to the initial question, what would future scientists trying to work out where temporally transferred particles re-appear try and do? They'd have to make sure the transfers to another time, whether to the past or to the future, were at least observed and recorded at this other point in time. It's therefore no good transferring single particles. If they just appeared somewhere backwards or forwards in time, they wouldn't even be noticed. So those designing experiments would have to try and transfer more matter, perhaps blobs of plasma. Surely, something like that would attract attention in the past or in the future and be noticed, wherever such blobs of plasma re-appeared. Once the bare basics of transfer are understood, they could even try to cause transfers that would definitely be recorded because of their particular characteristics or even patterns.

The other question was, WHERE would such a transfer re-appear? One theory states that it would appear at the same point relative to the Sun, or perhaps more correctly, at the same point relative to the gravity focus of the Solar System, the Barycentre. That would mean that it would appear in empty space, at the point in Earth's orbit where the transfer were initiated, relative to this constantly moving Barycentre, but in an earlier or future time. We would only notice such a transfer into the past if such a ball of plasma were to enter the atmosphere, as Earth passed by in a different year, at a point where Earth in a previous or future year intersects that same point relative to the Barycentre defined by the time and date of the transfer. But what would this look like? It would look just like an asteroid entering the atmosphere or like an "Earth impact" and almost certainly simply be explained away by astronomers as just that. "Yet another meteorite". Could we ever tell the difference however? Yes, we possibly could.

Is there any evidence of such events already having occurred? There is ample evidence.
Con't in next post re 5000 word limit...

Part 2 of time travel reply:

Consider just one possibility of making sure impacts are not missed. Why not, once the transfer mechanism is understood, verify it by sending not just one but TWO blobs of plasma to the same location, but on consecutive days? Meteorites certainly don't strike twice in the same place, a day apart. Nay-saying astronomers who put every such event down to meteorite impact and nothing else would have a hard time trying to explain that away. Such a double event would definitely be reported and certainly raise eyebrows, even if it occurred in any safely remote location.

Has such a strange double event ever happened? Yes, in September 2004. On September 14th, 2004, at 20:30 p.m. local time, a bright object coming from the north exploded behind the mountains of the Martial Glacier just north of Ushuaia in Argentina, the southernmost town on Earth and also one of the most remote. It caused tree damage over about 150 square meters, but no meteorite remnants were ever found. The very next day, but thirty minutes later, the same thing happened AGAIN and was witnessed again at Ushuaia and also at Rio Grande, the next town to the northeast.

If a responsible scientist were to try and choose a location where there was virtually no danger of harming anyone, yet where an event like this would still be seen, reported and investigated, so you could analyse the result of the experiment in the distant future, you could hardly pick a safer one. But let's get back to that theory of transferred matter re-appearing at the same point relative to Sun and Barycentre: A location just outside Geneva will inhabit the same point relative to the Barycentre as the point north of Ushuaia where the object appeared, in the year 2021. Pure coincidence? The next day, in 2004 and 2021, this same location does intersect on the orbital path with the same entry north of Ushuaia area again. But only about thirty minutes later, due to Earth's rotation. The very same time delay observed for that second Ushuaia impact. Coincidence again?

Were the Ushuaia events matter transfers from the future? Are scientists from the future even trying to make us aware of them, by targeting the same location a second time? Will they hope that someone in the past will finally understand the significance of that thirty minute time delay on the second day as pointing to impact area and high energy facility area both inhabiting the same point relative to the Barycentre on consecutive days? Why would they be trying to make us aware of the possibility that these events were temporal transfers?

The next posting will be about the strange event at Esteban Echeverria in 2011. Again, one high energy site matches the position of the blast site relative to the Sun in the future, but not only that. In this case there is other very suggestive evidence linking both the high energy site and the blast site with a high degree of probability.