Let’s review. What do we have here? (Post #1) We have a description of a forty-year old event. This person went ‘into the woods’ in or near Fitchburg, MA on a hot sunny day. After ten minutes she came out of the woods on ‘the other side.’ She saw:
1. ‘a futuristic neighborhood’
2. the houses and roads look ‘well advanced’
3. they are extremely clean, colorful, and beautiful
4. The roads were made of metallic cement and reflected sunlight
5. the houses had huge windows and colorful rooftops.
6. the street lights looked ‘different.’
7. She was there precisely six minutes and no one else was there.
8. There is a deep humming sound.
9. The next day on a return visit, the scene wasn’t there.
That’s all we’ve got for Post #1. There IS no more detail. For ‘value’ words we have ‘futuristic,’ and ‘well advanced,’ which are very subjective. The other descriptors don’t tell us anything differently. There’s not really anything in that description that proves ‘time slip.’ What is ‘futuristic’? Stuff built in the 1930s looks futuristic today. They had a vision of the future that looked streamlined, so they built stuff that looked like it. But it’s old. This same post, by the way, was posted on ATS in May in a timeslip thread anonymously. It received no feedback whatsoever: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread348068/pg2
Post #3 gives us a different experience 30 seconds in duration. What do we have there?
1. an ‘unfamiliar’ place ‘in the past’ this time.
2. There was an old gas station with a round white sign trimmed in black lettering
That’s it. Post #7: She had flashbacks of the event since 1971 when she moved away, but the memory is very clear. Post #8: She remembers it very clearly and she was in the woods because she had scratches from the underbrush. Post #11. She has never seen a UFO. A ‘beginning’ paranormal investigator named Lucas asked her questions. Be sure to read what Lucas has to say here and pay attention to his language. We do learn here that she must have posted this somewhere else. Lucas apparently does NOT follow through with a more intensive investigation. In posts 13 & 14 she seems to misunderstand Mike when he suggests hypnosis by wondering if hypnosis is common in time slip cases (Post #13) then suggest she could not have been hypnotized AT THE TIME because she has physical evidence in the form of scratches. She clearly does not understand that Mike is suggesting that hypnosis AFTER THE FACT might help her recall the event. He was not suggesting she was hypnotized at the time of the event. She does not understand the exchange until Mike clarifies. Then she seems quite aware of UFO hypnosis cases and posts several videos. LeClair points out the first two are completely bogus.
At this point several people weigh in on possibilities. In Post #21 we learn a few more details and a little more about the paranormal investigator.
1. She was on a hill when she saw all this. She was standing in grass with woods behind and to the side.
2. A road was in front of her and she stepped slightly on it.
3. She saw several rows of houses. It was not holographic or transparent
Post #30 is where she says she uses cut and paste to share the ‘paranormal researcher’s’ ideas on the subject. Here it gets interesting because the pasted information is written in the same idiolect as TimeExperiencer uses. This is characterized by run-on sentences with a lack of commas, a confusion between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ as well as ‘its’ and ‘it’s,’ and a tendency to misuse tenses or eliminate them altogether. Below are a couple of examples from posts 21, 23 and 30. Remember this is supposed to be cut & paste, not a paraphrase.
Time Experiencer: “What happen was I walk into another time and place.”
Lucas: “I wonder if there was any special about that spot?”
Time Experiencer: “I told Lucas about the fire that happen there before my experience.”
Lucas: “you on some of the very same geographical minerals”
Time Experiencer: “but, if your saying all memories are screen memories..”
Lucas: “But Yes your home is very important…”
An ‘idiolect’ is a personal way of speaking or writing. It has nothing to do with grammar per se. I am not complaining about the grammar. That’s not the point. But grammar, good or bad, can be used as a ‘marker.’ The point is that Lucas and TimeExperiencer appear to use exactly the same manner of writing. They were written by the same person. If Lucas does exist, then we ought to be able to write to him independently. TimeExperiencer ought to be able to provide the original emails, complete with headers. That would be ‘documentation’ which TimeExperiencer has not seen fit to provide us. That wouldn’t prove her experience, of course, but it old prove she had talked to Lucas about it. Right now I see no evidence Lucas exists at all.
After post #30 many of us, including myself, got a little off-topic. I was dissing psychology and a psychologist decided to take umbrage. I’d be happy to discuss that on a relevant thread. Sorry it got out of hand. TimeExperiencer has NOT been hypnotized, so in reference to her experience, psychology as such is kind of a side topic. Of course, she accuses me of putting words in her mouth, but she clearly misunderstands the entire issue. In fact, she clearly misunderstands much of what several posters are tying to say. She does not track well, and that has the effect of making her an elusive subject, if not intentionally evasive.
By this time, also, TimeExperiencer is defensive, and most of her answers are in defense of her experience rather than adding more information about it. She has insisted from the very first post that she is, ‘a real time traveler’ period, end of story. She didn’t come on here and say, “I had this weird experience and don’t know what to make of it. Let me tell you about it.” Instead, she said, “Hello, I am a real time traveler who travel thru time in real life…” and insists that is the only possible explanation.
She also says her story is ‘well documented.” What is the documentation, pray tell? That she had scratches from the branches left from walking in the woods. That’s it. That’s the sum total of the ‘documentation.’ She insists she was ‘there’ for precisely six minutes, but studiously avoids the question of how can she tell this. I maintain that if she walked in the woods, it is VERY LIKELY she DID have scratches from that experience, but that fact has absolutely nothing to do with what she allegedly saw. It just proves she had been walking in the woods.
We have a very vague story here with very few data elements to go on, listed at the beginning of this post. Is that such a bad thing? Not really. The only bad thing is that TimeExperiencer insists that we believe her and insists she is a real time traveler. She’s getting a lot of attention here and I think this is the real point. As for the veracity of the story itself, if you multiplied it by infinity and stuck it in an ant’s mouth it would roll around like a BB in a boxcar.