AIBU to believe FIL time slip experience?

[elsiesbonnet]

FIL was round yesterday evening for dinner with his wife. We were talking about the Uncanny podcast & recent TV episode then he told us of two experiences he'd had in the same place a number of years apart. After I went & did some research & asked a couple questions today, he's told us of another experience he had in the same place that was similar to one of the other experiences but that happened when he as a child.

I'm quite sceptical about paranormal type events I guess because I've never witnessed anything myself but am generally quite open minded. I don't believe FIL to be the type to make this sort of thing up & he was almost unwilling to tell us in case we thought he was crazy. He's never told anyone before.

AIBU to think what he experienced could've been real? In one of the instances he interacted with people in the past, his recall was quite genuine & he had some significant detail that you couldn't just make up. Has anyone else experienced a time slip or some other paranormal event they couldn't explain? I'm intrigued!

I just so want it to be Francis Bacon. There’s some great stuff by Andrew Waugh and the First Folio through strongly suggesting it was the Earl of Oxford after all!!

John Dee has got to be involved somehow though!

I am totally Bacon. But on this thread I admitted to my timeslip of Kirkham Priory not being there. I am 100% reliable or not at all. But I believe in Bacon. Even though I was always a veggie.

I think we're being extremely restrained in not commenting on the fact that she thought we needed to be told where it came from and who wrote Hamlet

LOL. Touchy! Always the sign of the intellectually underconfident. 😂

There are a lot of things we know now about things we can't see (eg sound waves) that would have been unimaginable thousands of years ago. So I don't rule out anything, though I think there are also people who deceive and manipulate to create a name for themselves or to benefit themselves in some more material way.

I saw the Uncanny item about the "time slip" in, I think it was called Bold Street in Liverpool. The woman interviewed was, I thought, very convincing but who's to know.

boredfuckinsenseless I think what you describe re the Queen's coronation might be an example of when someone hears a vivid description of an event and, from their internal visualisation of the event, they incorporate it into what they believe is their own, first hand, memory of it.

An example of this is:

"A classic example of a false memory from the second year of life described by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and reproduced in English translation by the US psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979): ‘I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Élysées, when a man tried to kidnap me. I was held in by the strap fastened round me while my nurse bravely tried to stand between me and the thief. She received various scratches, and I can still see vaguely those on her face. Then a crowd gathered, a policeman with a short cloak and a white baton came up and the man took to his heels. I can still see the whole scene, and can even place it near the tube station. When I was about fifteen my parents received a letter from my former nurse saying that she had been converted to the Salvation Army. She wanted to confess past faults, and in particular to return the watch she had been given on this occasion. She had made up the whole story, faking the scratches. I, therefore, must have heard, as a child, the account of the story, which my parents believed, and projected it into the past in the form of a visual memory’ (pp. 62–3). See also constructive memory, deferred action, eyewitness misinformation effect, infantile amnesia, reality monitoring, recovered memory.

From: Piaget kidnapping memory in A Dictionary of Psychology »

The Invisible Gorilla book sounds very interesting.

I think what you describe re the Queen's coronation might be an example of when someone hears a vivid description of an event and, from their internal visualisation of the event, they incorporate it into what they believe is their own, first hand, memory of it.

@ellyeth - Did you see that the whole of the Queen's Coronation was repeated on BBC2 in Silver Jubillee year - 1977? The rational explanation is that the poster did sit down and watch it as a child, exactly as she remembers, but misattributes to a different time.

You can never prove that supernatural phenomena don't exist. You can only show that there is no good evidence and/or that there are better explanations.

You can't prove that I haven't developed the power of flight, but you would be sensible to believe I haven't unless I give you good evidence that I have.

Exactly the same reason that rational people don't believe in religions: it's for those making claims to provide convincing evidence for them as the best workable theory to explain objectively measured phenomena, not for others to have to "prove" them wrong.

Clearly people can and do convince themselves of whatever implausible things they wish to but it can't be expected that others will also believe what they do without convincing evidence.

That said, there are many observable things that cirrent science cannot explain adequately: the behaviour of sub-atomic particles, the mismatch between quantum physics and relativity, dark matter, various phenomena observed in space. But when someone wants to offer an explanation for them, a best fit theory for what we have observed to date, it does need to fit that data and be plausible.

*it’s for those making claims to provide convincing evidence for them as the best workable theory to explain objectively measured phenomena, not for others to have to "prove" them wrong.

Clearly people can and do convince themselves of whatever implausible things they wish to but it can't be expected that others will also believe what they do without convincing evidence.*

Yes. However, those putting forward this logic often use odd examples like the ones we’ve seen, eg “If I told you I could fly, you’d want some evidence.” But that’s not quite parallel with what we’re seeing on this thread.

If you felt you had experienced flying, you would have some ‘data’ related to it, even if it was just sensations you had experienced. So you wouldn’t be basing it on nothing even though the evidence may well be very dodgy.

If you tried to convince someone else of your flying experience, they would quite rightly be unmoved because they themselves didn’t have anything even approaching evidence since they didn’t have your experience. But, if they were a reasonable person, they might acknowledge that you did have some reason to believe this happened, even if the reason is related to irregular brain activity or drug use or whatever. The belief is not literally based on nothing. The information it’s based on is someone’s experience; it’s not just a random fantastical idea plucked from the ether.

What we see repeatedly on this thread is sceptics comparing posters’ genuinely believed experiences (which are based on something, even if it’s not exactly what they think) with wild, plucked-out-of-the-air ideas that are based on nothing. It’s just insulting to those who are trying to make sense of their weird experiences.

Sorry, @GreenAppleCrumble, I disagree.

You're absolutely right to say that people who think they have felt strange phenomena have the evidence of their own experience.

But that's why I for one have used the phrase "good evidence" or "convincing evidence". Our perception is not good evidence. We mis-see things and mis-hear things and misinterpret things.

Leaping to "time slips" or "ghosts" or as an explanation is what is daft. There is no good eveidence for those things.

I think it depends what people are claiming. I mean, ‘ghost’ is quite often just shorthand for anything that seems beyond normal physical explanation. Surely you can allow that people are going to freaked out if, say, they see an inanimate object move with force across a room? It’s surely worthy of a moment’s thought? These things are often the stand-out experience of someone’s life. It’s just rude, in my opinion, to sneer that there must be a simple explanation when these people have wrestled with the experience over and over.

As for ‘time slips’, it’s not ludicrous to use that phrase if what you think you’ve seen a world from the past! Yes, it’s very reasonable to challenge whether anyone has actually seen that, but if that’s what someone thinks they have seen, then that’s what they would say. They’re not ‘leaping’ to a random made-up concept so much as describing what they think they saw.

Its very hard when these experiences are not our own but someone else’s. It’s also very interesting that more than one person describes having seen the same ‘time slip’. At least, I find it interesting. I think it’s at least worth a pause for thought.

I have never, never conjured up something that wasn’t there so I find it very hard to get my head round the idea that people imagine or are mistaken about things in quite such a spectacular way as would be needed to account for even half the things on this thread. Sure, I’ve misremembered things and created memories of things that turn out to be false, or misremembered dreams as reality etc. But those are relatively easy to correct; they are a tiny bit odd but hardly worth a moment’s thought. I find it strange how some sceptics can make such confident pronouncements about the really properly inexplicable things that others have experienced.

And I do find it quite rude tbh.

There is a lady on mumsnet who says she went back to 2004, and it was such a real experience. She experienced it momentarily,and was straight back to her time. Where is she? She seems very genuine, and heeled details were very good.

Yes, I wonder how she knew what things were like in 2004.

😂

*MasterBeth · 16/10/2023 09:06

Goldenbear · 16/10/2023 08:12

We have a number that is significant in the family one is my Mum's birthday, my DD's birthday and my Gran died on my Mum's birthday. That number comes up again and again for things in our life sometimes not significant but other times important days.
If you survey a random group of just 23 people there is actually about a 50–50 chance that two of them will have the same birthday. It's just maths*

I have known a few people born on the same date and month as me.
One thing I have noticed is we are all really really shit at playing tennis

People will tell you that they aren’t very good but can sometimes connect ball with bat.
To me it is like the ball disappears and I am guessing it is near me so swipe the air and miss the ball completely

Told friend this once and she laughed at me.

Several months later, her and her dh were on holiday and for a bit of fun with another couple they had met there, decided to make use of the hotels tennis courts although the dh of the other couple said he was really bad at tennis.

She said watching him play tennis was like watching me swatting the air with my racket as the balk sailed over head

Remembering my conversation she apologised for the random question and asked if his birthdate was the same as I me.

The Dw and this guy looked at her stunned and asked how she knew and she recounted my experience of people born on this birthdate and month being really really bad at playing tennis

I believe in the after life and don't know exactly how it will be. Open mindedness makes me trust that your FIL could have experienced genuine interactions.
We don't know everything.

*GreenAppleCrumble · 09/11/2023 10:08

it’s for those making claims to provide convincing evidence for them as the best workable theory to explain objectively measured phenomena, not for others to have to "prove" them wrong.

Clearly people can and do convince themselves of whatever implausible things they wish to but it can't be expected that others will also believe what they do without convincing evidence.

Yes. However, those putting forward this logic often use odd examples like the ones we’ve seen, eg “If I told you I could fly, you’d want some evidence.” But that’s not quiteparallel with what we’re seeing on this thread.

If you felt you had experienced flying, you would have some ‘data’ related to it, even if it was just sensations you had experienced. So you wouldn’t be basing it on nothing even though the evidence may well be very dodgy.

If you tried to convince someone else of your flying experience, they would quite rightly be unmoved because they themselves didn’t have anything even approaching evidence since they didn’t have your experience. But, if they were a reasonable person, they might acknowledge that you did have some reason to believe this happened, even if the reason is related to irregular brain activity or drug use or whatever. The belief is not literally based on nothing. The information it’s based on is someone’s experience; it’s not just a random fantastical idea plucked from the ether.

What we see repeatedly on this thread is sceptics comparing posters’ genuinely believed experiences (which are based on something, even if it’s not exactly what they think) with wild, plucked-out-of-the-air ideas that are based on nothing. It’s just insulting to those who are trying to make sense of their weird experiences*

I recounted my experience immediately after it had happened

Pre internet even being thought of and only land line telephone connecting us to the outside world. No one had called. Neither of us had been out of sight or hearing of the other

Dh had dismissed it as me dozing off momentarily.
Then later all the programmes stopped to announce what I had said had happened at exactly the same time I had seen it unfold.
Even a documentary about it that rebuilt the scene to find the timeline and placement of everything.
I was telling dh about the scene and what had happened before the documentary could explain

My theory is that our thoughts, ideas, what we see etc are merely electric impulses and in times of danger our electric impulses get heightened and send out “SOS” signals to anyone who can pick up the signal

Like the people who suddenly know they need to visit/call a relative.

Interesting reading the adopted memory story by Piaget, as told above.
There was a documentary on telly quite a few years ago about memory. Some volunteers were asked various things about their childhoods, including whether or not they'd ever been in a hot air balloon. All said they hadn't. They were each then shown a faked photo of themselves as a child with one of their parents in the basket of a balloon as it was taking off. Nearly every single one then had an "oh yes, I remember now" moment, and many went on to describe even more details about that day, remembering their favourite shoes, eating cake beforehand etc. even though it never happened. They were all convinced theyd recalled a genuine memory.

Memory is terrible. It makes things up. It exaggerates things then insists that's how it was. When you retell the same exaggerated or inaccurate anecdote again and again the more real and solid the "memory" becomes of the event.

Great story - and a pure co-incidence.

I honestly can't tell if this post is serious or not.

Well I'm stuffed by that one I share my birthday with Chairman Mao and Phil Spector. My husband had better start sleeping with one eye open.

Well their phone probably wouldn't work in a different time.

Ignoring for one moment the fact that no one is actually going to another time, a phone wouldn't need a signal just to take photos, would it?

SurprisedWithAHorse Absolutely serious😄

Or that you end up with a 1950s perm or blue rinse.

I found this thread when searching, so I am sort of resurrecting the zombie (quite appropriate for Halloween approaching) rather than beginning a new one.

A male friend of mine told us about meeting his friend in the pub one evening about 6pm. It was dark outside and the friend had to walk by a stream to get to the pub. He is not a fanciful person, but came into the pub saying that he had seen a young woman washing her hair in the stream by the side of the pub. The pub is 16th century and originally a chantry house. She was wearing a white dress or nightdress (think 1970s Laura Ashley type outfit) and looked straight at him. He looked back at her. I believe he saw what he said he saw, or he believed he did, but there must be more than we can experience daily.

I don't think this was a ghost as such but that he got a glimpse into the past and she got a glimpse into the future.