I would say that reality is actually the opposite of NONE reality.
By saying it is the opposite of 'reported as reality' then you seem to be saying that you equate every report of everything as being none real (the opposite of reality) because it is just a report and not otherwise established.
I would just say that a report is unestablished as reality and open to various interpretations until the balance of evidence decrees the most likely result..................
No, I'm simply saying that until something is proved to be real, then it can't be referred to as reality. Saying it's not reality isn't anything like saying it's untrue.
However, I feel we're just arguing semantics now, and not advancing anything.
No, I'm simply saying that until something is proved to be real, then it can't be referred to as reality. Saying it's not reality isn't anything like saying it's untrue.
However, I feel we're just arguing semantics now, and not advancing anything.
Actually I don't think we disagree on anything like as much as it might appear.
We possibly just have slightly different approaches to the value (though certainly not the fallibility) of witness testimony about strange things.
Likely based on my years of immersing myself in these things and hearing 10,000 accounts from people.
You do quite quickly get a sense of which ones are crackpots, which are deluded or making stuff up and which are genuinely mystified over what has happened to them.
There are enough of the latter to make me confident that all of these subjects are not a crock or complete fabrication.
But in most cases I am not a supporter of what most assume to be the only alternative to the story being a crock. That it is alien kidnap, or a dead person's spirit or - here - that some people do literally travel through time.
My personal opinion on most 'supernatural' subjects formed over the 40 years I have worked in these areas is that they are only called that in mistake and they all have (or more correctly will have) a scientific explanation. Some of which we have found. Some of which we have good pointers towards understanding. Some of which we just maybe are not yet advanced enough in our understanding of the world around us to have got beyond the point of mythologising the story in ways human beings have always done when faced with the unknown. And because we have as yet no science clever enough to figure out what is really happening.
I will try to post another time slip that might be less contentious than the one under discussion here - which - as I have said - is not really typical and (I understand) appears full of seemingly unlikely elements that are bound to inspire doubt.
As search here is useless (though google works to find old DS threads if anyone ever wants to try) I found a post I made 6 or 7 years ago on a thread in General Discussions about Time Travel after someone had raised the French time slip case on Strange But True?.
By the way in answer to other questions on that case in here - the event itself occurred in 1979 (so base any judgement of the value of Francs on that).
Also the 'date' of the time period of the hotel that they allegedly stayed in was estimated by having the description of the clothing they described being worn by people working and staying there by an expert in that area and it was estimated as being circa 1905.
Another thing that emerged on the French hotel case came during one of my interviews with the families where they described something interesting that had never emerged before concerning the weather.
They said it appeared to have involved a static electric charge in the air as if a thunderstorm was active. They appeared not to know that this has featured in other time slip reports.
The earliest example is probably the one reported by two British visitors to the Petit Trianon in Versailles in the early 1900s. They claimed to have seen it change to a scene where people in old costumes were wandering around including one they thought was Marie Antoinette. There were intense atmospheric electrical storms in the area at the time.
The aftermath of that case has generated similar debate to the modern one - which at first we (and the holidaymaking couples) suspected had to be a theme hotel - of the murder mystery type - where people pretending to be living in the past. But the local tourist board were never able to find anything like that in the area.
In Versailles the argument was less that the women made their story up (though there have always been some thoughts like that, of course) but more that over the years they transformed in their minds a pretty ordinary wander round the gardens where they saw people dressed up in period costumes for a party into an actual trip back through the centuries.
But it is certainly interesting that there are connections of theme between these two cases and - as the Versailles one is quite well known (the BBC made a drama about iot - just as a drama was made about the French hotel stay by their local TV company in Kent btw) - you could wonder if one inspired the other.
Remarkably there is a third time slip case that also involves British visitors to France. This involved two women (so all three French cases did involve two women - though the most recent also had two men with them). Multi witness time slips are quite rare so this is an even odder coincidence.
They were staying at Puys near Dieppe in France on 4 August 1951 when they were woken in the early hours by the sound of battle going on outside. It seemed to be slightly distant echoing through the atmosphere but they heard explosions, gun fire, aircraft and ships scraping against docks and so forth. As this went on for some while they started to make a record of what they were hearing - after realising they were hearing something that was not visible happening out from their window over the sea.
They wrote up their accounts independently and submitted them to researchers on return to the UK after discovering from locals next day that nobody else had heard these sounds - so it was not some dramatic military exercise - but also that there was an allied raid on Dieppe in August 1942 - 9 years earlier. When their accounts were matched against detailed war records they seemed to tie up. As if they had an audible replay or a time slip with hearing only of the past.
Anyhow here is my post on DS some years ago about the other case we covered in Strange But True?
As you can see it is again not without its puzzles and questions we must ask in trying to make sense of what really happened (or did not happen). But for what it is worth here it is:-
The village was called Bampton.
The couple drove through it and saw many flowers and a sign saying it had won a competition for 1976. Next day they returned to the same village (or what they thought was the same village) and found it looking different with no flower displays or sign.
This is a pretty typical timeslip in that you have to make assumptions.
That they visited the same village both times. That the sign noting the year 1976 meant it WAS 1976 or soon after.
As you see the idea that this was an actual timeslip is dependent on these assumptions being accurate.
Bampton might have just had the sign up in 1993 (when the incident occurred). And the village they visited second time around might have been another one (they admit to getting a bit confused).
It might have been an actual timeslip, but equally there could have been a more prosaic explanation.
The most intetresting 'clue' in this case was that the couple claim they set fire to their map when getting lost on the first visit. But when using it next day to try to retrace their steps it was not even singed.
This makes you wonder if the 'timeslip' was a kind of collective vision (a folie a deux) (shared dream/vivid memory) as opposed to a real world visit - thus explaining why the map was never actually burnt.
As search here is useless (though google works to find old DS threads if anyone ever wants to try) I found a post I made 6 or 7 years ago on a thread in General Discussions about Time Travel after someone had raised the French time slip case on Strange But True?.
... [/I]
I have snipped your quote due to its length but in order to make it clear I am responding to you. I have a few comments but might forget some.
On a side-point, in another post you mention the famous spaceman picture. This link provides what I think is a very convincing explanation. I suspect you may know this explanation already but I don't think it needs to be a hoax (as you mentioned). It could simply be that he did not see his wife when taking the picture. http://debunkedmyth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-solway-firth-spaceman.html
The Bampton story was I think actually also in the show that was linked previously. It seems quite slight in detail and personally I am not sure how it could be seen as convincing. It only needs a failure to find the right spot and a little bit of confusion on some details. I also am confused how the disappearing singe in the map fits in. I don't see how this supports time travel in any way. It seems like a wholly new phenomenon and actually adds doubt to the time slip explanation.
The one about hearing the sounds of war is tricky as there is little information but the first thing I thought was they might have been hearing someone's TV or radio (or similar) nearby. Maybe this doesn't fit once more detail is added but the story as you told it seems to leave this as a possibility.
The Versailles story is actually one I read about the other day on a blog linked in this thread (the blog not the actual report of that incident). Here is the blog post...http://strangerearth.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/focus-on-time-slip-at-versailles.html
While he does not provide clear attribution to the claim, he actually says that costumed parties were held in that area (and presumably around that time). His take on the story is not bad if a bit limited. He also gives the impression of being not so much a skeptic as someone actively trying to find convincing evidence but who is being (somewhat) rigorous in how he interprets it. I am not saying it is a done deal based on this blog but it is intriguing that he is claiming the opposite of what you said about the tourist board confirming no costumed events in that place at that time.
This brings in the issue of how these stories transfer from person to person and how individual cognition operates. When people tell stories (especially extraordinary stories) they want to be believed. This is largely due to preservation of self-esteem. This instinct is being seen as increasingly what drives much of our behaviour. This doesn't require deliberate lying but can, and often does, happen automatically outside of conscious awareness.
Let me give an hypothetical example but using the Versailles story as the foundation...
Due to preservation of self-esteem everyone wants to believed and doesn't want to seem stupid or gullible. The original women are Person 1. They tell the story to Person 2 and no mention is made of people in costume. For the sake of the example, despite being unlikely in reality, every detail of the story as told across the people is identical other than the differences mentioned here. Person 2 tells Person 3 and when costumes are brought up Person 2 says they don't know about but they doubt it was that. Person 3 tells Person 4 and voluntarily adds that they don't think it could be costumed people. Person 4 decides to call the tourist board in France. Perhaps due to difficulty, inconvenience, or lack of information in the records, the person at the tourist board says they don't know of any costumed events in that place at that time (it was many years earlier). Only that they don't know of specific such events rather than definitive proof that there were not (frankly proving there were not seems like a difficult task). Person 4 tells Person 5 and includes that the tourist board said they knew of no costumed events so it can't be that. They are not willfully lying, it is a common automatic cognitive process that is happening. Person 5 repeats the story and adds that the French tourist board confirmed that no costumed events happened there so that definitively can't be the explanation. From that point this extra significant detail is part of the story. The original women said nothing about costumes and no one lied. Despite this, the story now includes notable third-party evidence that seems to rule out people in costume. Meanwhile, that blog suggests just the opposite. Most people would consider the tourist board a more credible source than some guy writing a blog but in this admittedly hypothetical example this leads to flawed conclusions.
I know this proves nothing but this kind of effect when stories are told from person to person, and the tendency to embellish to make a story more believable or exciting, are phenomena that have been reported in many instances, particularly stories that are extraordinary. It comes down to flawed memory and flawed communication which are both virtually universal issues for humans.
A related issue is false memory. Under the heading "False Childhood Memories" in this link https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm there is a report of a fascinating and unnerving study. In summary subjects were told that an event occurred in their past that didn't happen and the researchers went to great lengths to convince them. In the end some subjects didn't just accept that the event happened and they had forgotten it. They actually started "remembering" it including how they felt and adding additional details. They actually thought they could remember the event despite it being made up. There is also the demonstrated fallibility of "flash bulb memories" which is perhaps more directly analogous to these time slip stories. Even in the person's own thoughts (not just in terms of telling others) the memory distorts over time. In some studies that have included reports involving memories of extraordinary experiences these distortions invariably shift towards becoming more spectacular and/or have details added that make the story more convincing. I can't say this is always what happens (outside of simple dishonesty or delusions and so on) but this is not just something that might occasionally happen. This is how our minds in general work.
There are a couple more points but since this post is already rather long :D the last thing is about science. I don't think saying that quantum mechanics was initially disputed and seen as crazy by many at the time is a valid comparison. It was still founded on mathematical modeling. I.e. evidence. It did take a long and difficult road after that but it was not just that someone had a weird experience. If using that logic literally anything should be given credence no matter how absurd it is. If there is tangible evidence for time slips that would be one thing but when there are many other highly plausible alternative explanations for these stories and nothing beyond the regularly flawed testimony it is really not the same thing.
Also it is not proof of anything that some scientists study paranormal phenomena. Even if some of them actively supported it. Credibility does not come from the source but from the evidence itself. This is like a variant of an ad hominem fallacy (basically reversed). The sh*t storm over the supposed connection of the MMR vaccine and autism is an example. That started with a doctor (credible person) and that is partly why many still believe this. The community, however, has gathered extensive evidence and proven beyond reasonable doubt that no such connection exists.
I believe I am open minded. I would also love to find (or hear about) strong evidence for any paranormal phenomenon. However, being open minded also means balancing evidence and being willing to reject all of it when that is what the evidence deserves. Being open minded does not mean a willingness to believe something regardless of how improbable it is. Incidentally, I suspect you knew much of what I have written so please don't think I am presuming otherwise. I just had to put it this way to hopefully make things clearer.
Jaycee, it might be useful for you to open a thread on this in GD, otherwise we're in danger of having all these posts deleted as being off-topic.
Should you do so, it might be useful if you could provide links to these cases which pre-date the TV series. On the Bampton one, for example, every page I can find is a forum referring to the TV series or an article in the Fortean Times (neither now available).
Bampton in Devon, incidentally, was National Winner of Britain in Bloom 1976,
Jaycee, it might be useful for you to open a thread on this in GD, otherwise we're in danger of having all these posts deleted as being off-topic.
Should you do so, it might be useful if you could provide links to these cases which pre-date the TV series. On the Bampton one, for example, every page I can find is a forum referring to the TV series or an article in the Fortean Times (neither now available).
Bampton in Devon, incidentally, was National Winner of Britain in Bloom 1976,
Seems fair enough. If a thread is started in GD I will probably get involved and the only reason I am not starting a thread there is because I can't guarantee I will be on the forum enough. If it does happen maybe pasting in some of the relevant stuff from here would avoid repetition although that obviously sounds like a pain in the a*se!
Anyway, in the interests of being on-topic... I was reading an article about the whole sitcom season in the i newspaper yesterday. The journalist was pretty scathing overall (which may find agreement from many here). One issue he had was the lack of creativity although I don't think he actually clarified what would constitute more creativity aside from commissioning creative new shows. That, obviously, is easier said than done. The odd part for me was that the one show he praised (outside of a couple of the new pilots) was YH. He said this showed creativity. I don't really get this as along with the many films etc. that have focused on a character's early years, I felt YH was very similar in several ways to Rock and Chips. Maybe it was more creative than some of the other shows in the season but it was hardly innovative for me. So one question is whether anyone on here thought it was indeed a creative notion that was used in YH. Did anyone here think that?
The other thing that confused me with his article was that it was a season about sitcom. The com obviously stands for comedy, as in funny. Despite liking KUA, Roy Clarke, Kerry Howard, and looking forward to the show, I was amazed at how utterly unfunny the show was. There were a couple of tiny smirk moments but it was actually quite confusing how little actual humour was in the show given that it was a spin-off of a sitcom shown as part of a sitcom season. Surely a sitcom needs at least a few laughs. For me, it wasn't even that jokes fell flat. I actually struggled to even see what was meant to be remotely funny for the vast majority of the show. The article didn't actually say it was funny, I don't think, so that just added to my confusion about why it deserved praise.
Anyway, my second question is whether anyone here did find it funny. I know some liked it so presumably that must include some who also were amused. I know it is subjective and that my opinion does not mean no one else found it funny. After all, there are many who found Miranda hilarious whereas I just couldn't see it at all. So, rather than looking at it as a sort of Heartbeat type cosy drama, did anyone here find it notably funny? Did you actually laugh much? If you did, it would also be interesting to know which scenes etc. you found funny. I am not asking this to then come back saying you are wrong or have dodgy taste, I am just curious after reading that article.
I did suggest a GD thread earlier because this was going too far from the point I originally replied to in here (about why Marks and Gran wrote the time travel rules in Goodnight Sweetheart as they did).
I am sure one on Time Travel will turn up in there soon enough without starting one.
I will look out for it.
Just to close the off topic bit about the Cumberland spaceman photo (happy to continue that debate elsewhere too).
It was NOT his wife accidentally in shot. I discussed that possibility with her 20 years ago as it was one of my initial suspicions too. But she was picnicking with her other daughter behind the camera looking at the photos being taken. She was never anywhere near the line of sight of the shot.
There are many things it might be and one I am sure it is not (a photo of a time traveller or spaceman). But it was not as simple as being his wife in line of shot. If it had been given the terrain at the location she would also be in mid air and unbalanced.
Anyhow, back on topic. Come on BBC. We want news of more from Goodnight Sweetheart ASAP. Please.
Goodnight Swetheart added 0.95 million via catchup on the week after transmission.
Taking it to around 4.7 million.
That was third in both the catch up numbers and in the overall totals. Both Are You Being Served? and Porridge gained more viewers on the night and via catch up.
Young Hyacinth did less well of all four in both measures and ended up about 300,000 less than Goodnight, Sweetheart.
Not sure this result is enough to guarantee it coming back for more. Had it got over 5 million I think it would have done for sure.
Let us hope that the very positive response from viewers who watched it is enough to persuade the BBC bosses.
I hope the BBC will recognise the good reception for GS and take into consideration when they make a decision as to whether to give it a full season that it had almost no publicity (I didn't see a single trailor for it or any interviews with the cast/creators on tv, press or radio)
I hope the BBC will recognise the good reception for GS and take into consideration when they make a decision as to whether to give it a full season that it had almost no publicity (I didn't see a single trailor for it or any interviews with the cast/creators on tv, press or radio)
It was almost as if the BBC actually wanted it to fail!
On Sunday's 'Points of View' a number of people gave it praise, and asked for its return as a series, but the presenter said that there was no word, as yet, about its' possible return - adding 'Come on BBC' ! '
I too think it's like they wanted it to fail. They were pushing Are You Being Served and Porridge big time. I only found out by chance a few days before that Goodnight Sweetheart was even being shown. Glad I did.
I too think it's like they wanted it to fail. They were pushing Are You Being Served and Porridge big time. I only found out by chance a few days before that Goodnight Sweetheart was even being shown. Glad I did.
I don't think they wanted it to fail. It was a very late addition to the lineup, meaning it wasn't ready to be featured in any of the publicity. And it still managed a healthy audience. Hopefully the BBC will take that into account when deciding whether to take it to series or not.
It was almost as if the BBC actually wanted it to fail!
On Sunday's 'Points of View' a number of people gave it praise, and asked for its return as a series, but the presenter said that there was no word, as yet, about its' possible return - adding 'Come on BBC' ! '
I cant see it coming back, the BBC wont listen to what fans want they give us alternative shit instead.
They need to get this commissioned ASAP, if they want to get an Xmas episode in the can.
It's about time the Xmas Day schedule is refreshed, this would be a perfect replacement for Call the Midwife or Mrs Brown's Boys, whom have both outstayed their welcome.
They need to get this commissioned ASAP, if they want to get an Xmas episode in the can.
It's about time the Xmas Day schedule is refreshed, this would be a perfect replacement for Call the Midwife or Mrs Brown's Boys, whom have both outstayed their welcome.
Lets be honest it took Dave to air Red Dwarf because BBC couldnt be bothered when there was so much fan demand for new episodes.
I really dont know why BBC wont listen to what people want.
To be fair to the BBC - if they had pitched that "Back to Earth" Coronation Street garbage to me - I would have shown them the door.
If they had pitched the series "proper" like the second Dave outing then it probably would have got more interest
While Back to Earth was shit and they should have done a proper episode its the BBC's fault. Look how many BBC sitcoms have been resurrected on other TV channels because the BBC are too lazy to give in.
While I thought that sitcom with Sharon and tracey was shit ITV did a good job bringing it back making it popular.
Comments
No, I'm simply saying that until something is proved to be real, then it can't be referred to as reality. Saying it's not reality isn't anything like saying it's untrue.
However, I feel we're just arguing semantics now, and not advancing anything.
Actually I don't think we disagree on anything like as much as it might appear.
We possibly just have slightly different approaches to the value (though certainly not the fallibility) of witness testimony about strange things.
Likely based on my years of immersing myself in these things and hearing 10,000 accounts from people.
You do quite quickly get a sense of which ones are crackpots, which are deluded or making stuff up and which are genuinely mystified over what has happened to them.
There are enough of the latter to make me confident that all of these subjects are not a crock or complete fabrication.
But in most cases I am not a supporter of what most assume to be the only alternative to the story being a crock. That it is alien kidnap, or a dead person's spirit or - here - that some people do literally travel through time.
My personal opinion on most 'supernatural' subjects formed over the 40 years I have worked in these areas is that they are only called that in mistake and they all have (or more correctly will have) a scientific explanation. Some of which we have found. Some of which we have good pointers towards understanding. Some of which we just maybe are not yet advanced enough in our understanding of the world around us to have got beyond the point of mythologising the story in ways human beings have always done when faced with the unknown. And because we have as yet no science clever enough to figure out what is really happening.
I will try to post another time slip that might be less contentious than the one under discussion here - which - as I have said - is not really typical and (I understand) appears full of seemingly unlikely elements that are bound to inspire doubt.
By the way in answer to other questions on that case in here - the event itself occurred in 1979 (so base any judgement of the value of Francs on that).
Also the 'date' of the time period of the hotel that they allegedly stayed in was estimated by having the description of the clothing they described being worn by people working and staying there by an expert in that area and it was estimated as being circa 1905.
Another thing that emerged on the French hotel case came during one of my interviews with the families where they described something interesting that had never emerged before concerning the weather.
They said it appeared to have involved a static electric charge in the air as if a thunderstorm was active. They appeared not to know that this has featured in other time slip reports.
The earliest example is probably the one reported by two British visitors to the Petit Trianon in Versailles in the early 1900s. They claimed to have seen it change to a scene where people in old costumes were wandering around including one they thought was Marie Antoinette. There were intense atmospheric electrical storms in the area at the time.
The aftermath of that case has generated similar debate to the modern one - which at first we (and the holidaymaking couples) suspected had to be a theme hotel - of the murder mystery type - where people pretending to be living in the past. But the local tourist board were never able to find anything like that in the area.
In Versailles the argument was less that the women made their story up (though there have always been some thoughts like that, of course) but more that over the years they transformed in their minds a pretty ordinary wander round the gardens where they saw people dressed up in period costumes for a party into an actual trip back through the centuries.
But it is certainly interesting that there are connections of theme between these two cases and - as the Versailles one is quite well known (the BBC made a drama about iot - just as a drama was made about the French hotel stay by their local TV company in Kent btw) - you could wonder if one inspired the other.
Remarkably there is a third time slip case that also involves British visitors to France. This involved two women (so all three French cases did involve two women - though the most recent also had two men with them). Multi witness time slips are quite rare so this is an even odder coincidence.
They were staying at Puys near Dieppe in France on 4 August 1951 when they were woken in the early hours by the sound of battle going on outside. It seemed to be slightly distant echoing through the atmosphere but they heard explosions, gun fire, aircraft and ships scraping against docks and so forth. As this went on for some while they started to make a record of what they were hearing - after realising they were hearing something that was not visible happening out from their window over the sea.
They wrote up their accounts independently and submitted them to researchers on return to the UK after discovering from locals next day that nobody else had heard these sounds - so it was not some dramatic military exercise - but also that there was an allied raid on Dieppe in August 1942 - 9 years earlier. When their accounts were matched against detailed war records they seemed to tie up. As if they had an audible replay or a time slip with hearing only of the past.
Anyhow here is my post on DS some years ago about the other case we covered in Strange But True?
As you can see it is again not without its puzzles and questions we must ask in trying to make sense of what really happened (or did not happen). But for what it is worth here it is:-
The village was called Bampton.
The couple drove through it and saw many flowers and a sign saying it had won a competition for 1976. Next day they returned to the same village (or what they thought was the same village) and found it looking different with no flower displays or sign.
This is a pretty typical timeslip in that you have to make assumptions.
That they visited the same village both times. That the sign noting the year 1976 meant it WAS 1976 or soon after.
As you see the idea that this was an actual timeslip is dependent on these assumptions being accurate.
Bampton might have just had the sign up in 1993 (when the incident occurred). And the village they visited second time around might have been another one (they admit to getting a bit confused).
It might have been an actual timeslip, but equally there could have been a more prosaic explanation.
The most intetresting 'clue' in this case was that the couple claim they set fire to their map when getting lost on the first visit. But when using it next day to try to retrace their steps it was not even singed.
This makes you wonder if the 'timeslip' was a kind of collective vision (a folie a deux) (shared dream/vivid memory) as opposed to a real world visit - thus explaining why the map was never actually burnt.
I have snipped your quote due to its length but in order to make it clear I am responding to you. I have a few comments but might forget some.
On a side-point, in another post you mention the famous spaceman picture. This link provides what I think is a very convincing explanation. I suspect you may know this explanation already but I don't think it needs to be a hoax (as you mentioned). It could simply be that he did not see his wife when taking the picture. http://debunkedmyth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-solway-firth-spaceman.html
The Bampton story was I think actually also in the show that was linked previously. It seems quite slight in detail and personally I am not sure how it could be seen as convincing. It only needs a failure to find the right spot and a little bit of confusion on some details. I also am confused how the disappearing singe in the map fits in. I don't see how this supports time travel in any way. It seems like a wholly new phenomenon and actually adds doubt to the time slip explanation.
The one about hearing the sounds of war is tricky as there is little information but the first thing I thought was they might have been hearing someone's TV or radio (or similar) nearby. Maybe this doesn't fit once more detail is added but the story as you told it seems to leave this as a possibility.
The Versailles story is actually one I read about the other day on a blog linked in this thread (the blog not the actual report of that incident). Here is the blog post...http://strangerearth.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/focus-on-time-slip-at-versailles.html
While he does not provide clear attribution to the claim, he actually says that costumed parties were held in that area (and presumably around that time). His take on the story is not bad if a bit limited. He also gives the impression of being not so much a skeptic as someone actively trying to find convincing evidence but who is being (somewhat) rigorous in how he interprets it. I am not saying it is a done deal based on this blog but it is intriguing that he is claiming the opposite of what you said about the tourist board confirming no costumed events in that place at that time.
This brings in the issue of how these stories transfer from person to person and how individual cognition operates. When people tell stories (especially extraordinary stories) they want to be believed. This is largely due to preservation of self-esteem. This instinct is being seen as increasingly what drives much of our behaviour. This doesn't require deliberate lying but can, and often does, happen automatically outside of conscious awareness.
Let me give an hypothetical example but using the Versailles story as the foundation...
Due to preservation of self-esteem everyone wants to believed and doesn't want to seem stupid or gullible. The original women are Person 1. They tell the story to Person 2 and no mention is made of people in costume. For the sake of the example, despite being unlikely in reality, every detail of the story as told across the people is identical other than the differences mentioned here. Person 2 tells Person 3 and when costumes are brought up Person 2 says they don't know about but they doubt it was that. Person 3 tells Person 4 and voluntarily adds that they don't think it could be costumed people. Person 4 decides to call the tourist board in France. Perhaps due to difficulty, inconvenience, or lack of information in the records, the person at the tourist board says they don't know of any costumed events in that place at that time (it was many years earlier). Only that they don't know of specific such events rather than definitive proof that there were not (frankly proving there were not seems like a difficult task). Person 4 tells Person 5 and includes that the tourist board said they knew of no costumed events so it can't be that. They are not willfully lying, it is a common automatic cognitive process that is happening. Person 5 repeats the story and adds that the French tourist board confirmed that no costumed events happened there so that definitively can't be the explanation. From that point this extra significant detail is part of the story. The original women said nothing about costumes and no one lied. Despite this, the story now includes notable third-party evidence that seems to rule out people in costume. Meanwhile, that blog suggests just the opposite. Most people would consider the tourist board a more credible source than some guy writing a blog but in this admittedly hypothetical example this leads to flawed conclusions.
I know this proves nothing but this kind of effect when stories are told from person to person, and the tendency to embellish to make a story more believable or exciting, are phenomena that have been reported in many instances, particularly stories that are extraordinary. It comes down to flawed memory and flawed communication which are both virtually universal issues for humans.
A related issue is false memory. Under the heading "False Childhood Memories" in this link https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm there is a report of a fascinating and unnerving study. In summary subjects were told that an event occurred in their past that didn't happen and the researchers went to great lengths to convince them. In the end some subjects didn't just accept that the event happened and they had forgotten it. They actually started "remembering" it including how they felt and adding additional details. They actually thought they could remember the event despite it being made up. There is also the demonstrated fallibility of "flash bulb memories" which is perhaps more directly analogous to these time slip stories. Even in the person's own thoughts (not just in terms of telling others) the memory distorts over time. In some studies that have included reports involving memories of extraordinary experiences these distortions invariably shift towards becoming more spectacular and/or have details added that make the story more convincing. I can't say this is always what happens (outside of simple dishonesty or delusions and so on) but this is not just something that might occasionally happen. This is how our minds in general work.
There are a couple more points but since this post is already rather long
Also it is not proof of anything that some scientists study paranormal phenomena. Even if some of them actively supported it. Credibility does not come from the source but from the evidence itself. This is like a variant of an ad hominem fallacy (basically reversed). The sh*t storm over the supposed connection of the MMR vaccine and autism is an example. That started with a doctor (credible person) and that is partly why many still believe this. The community, however, has gathered extensive evidence and proven beyond reasonable doubt that no such connection exists.
I believe I am open minded. I would also love to find (or hear about) strong evidence for any paranormal phenomenon. However, being open minded also means balancing evidence and being willing to reject all of it when that is what the evidence deserves. Being open minded does not mean a willingness to believe something regardless of how improbable it is. Incidentally, I suspect you knew much of what I have written so please don't think I am presuming otherwise. I just had to put it this way to hopefully make things clearer.
Should you do so, it might be useful if you could provide links to these cases which pre-date the TV series. On the Bampton one, for example, every page I can find is a forum referring to the TV series or an article in the Fortean Times (neither now available).
Bampton in Devon, incidentally, was National Winner of Britain in Bloom 1976,
Seems fair enough. If a thread is started in GD I will probably get involved and the only reason I am not starting a thread there is because I can't guarantee I will be on the forum enough. If it does happen maybe pasting in some of the relevant stuff from here would avoid repetition although that obviously sounds like a pain in the a*se!
Anyway, in the interests of being on-topic... I was reading an article about the whole sitcom season in the i newspaper yesterday. The journalist was pretty scathing overall (which may find agreement from many here). One issue he had was the lack of creativity although I don't think he actually clarified what would constitute more creativity aside from commissioning creative new shows. That, obviously, is easier said than done. The odd part for me was that the one show he praised (outside of a couple of the new pilots) was YH. He said this showed creativity. I don't really get this as along with the many films etc. that have focused on a character's early years, I felt YH was very similar in several ways to Rock and Chips. Maybe it was more creative than some of the other shows in the season but it was hardly innovative for me. So one question is whether anyone on here thought it was indeed a creative notion that was used in YH. Did anyone here think that?
The other thing that confused me with his article was that it was a season about sitcom. The com obviously stands for comedy, as in funny. Despite liking KUA, Roy Clarke, Kerry Howard, and looking forward to the show, I was amazed at how utterly unfunny the show was. There were a couple of tiny smirk moments but it was actually quite confusing how little actual humour was in the show given that it was a spin-off of a sitcom shown as part of a sitcom season. Surely a sitcom needs at least a few laughs. For me, it wasn't even that jokes fell flat. I actually struggled to even see what was meant to be remotely funny for the vast majority of the show. The article didn't actually say it was funny, I don't think, so that just added to my confusion about why it deserved praise.
Anyway, my second question is whether anyone here did find it funny. I know some liked it so presumably that must include some who also were amused. I know it is subjective and that my opinion does not mean no one else found it funny. After all, there are many who found Miranda hilarious whereas I just couldn't see it at all. So, rather than looking at it as a sort of Heartbeat type cosy drama, did anyone here find it notably funny? Did you actually laugh much? If you did, it would also be interesting to know which scenes etc. you found funny. I am not asking this to then come back saying you are wrong or have dodgy taste, I am just curious after reading that article.
I am sure one on Time Travel will turn up in there soon enough without starting one.
I will look out for it.
Just to close the off topic bit about the Cumberland spaceman photo (happy to continue that debate elsewhere too).
It was NOT his wife accidentally in shot. I discussed that possibility with her 20 years ago as it was one of my initial suspicions too. But she was picnicking with her other daughter behind the camera looking at the photos being taken. She was never anywhere near the line of sight of the shot.
There are many things it might be and one I am sure it is not (a photo of a time traveller or spaceman). But it was not as simple as being his wife in line of shot. If it had been given the terrain at the location she would also be in mid air and unbalanced.
Anyhow, back on topic. Come on BBC. We want news of more from Goodnight Sweetheart ASAP. Please.
Taking it to around 4.7 million.
That was third in both the catch up numbers and in the overall totals. Both Are You Being Served? and Porridge gained more viewers on the night and via catch up.
Young Hyacinth did less well of all four in both measures and ended up about 300,000 less than Goodnight, Sweetheart.
Not sure this result is enough to guarantee it coming back for more. Had it got over 5 million I think it would have done for sure.
Let us hope that the very positive response from viewers who watched it is enough to persuade the BBC bosses.
It was almost as if the BBC actually wanted it to fail!
On Sunday's 'Points of View' a number of people gave it praise, and asked for its return as a series, but the presenter said that there was no word, as yet, about its' possible return - adding 'Come on BBC' ! '
I don't think they wanted it to fail. It was a very late addition to the lineup, meaning it wasn't ready to be featured in any of the publicity. And it still managed a healthy audience. Hopefully the BBC will take that into account when deciding whether to take it to series or not.
I cant see it coming back, the BBC wont listen to what fans want they give us alternative shit instead.
I could see GOLD picking it up.
It's about time the Xmas Day schedule is refreshed, this would be a perfect replacement for Call the Midwife or Mrs Brown's Boys, whom have both outstayed their welcome.
Lets be honest it took Dave to air Red Dwarf because BBC couldnt be bothered when there was so much fan demand for new episodes.
I really dont know why BBC wont listen to what people want.
Because the Beeb are right and we are wrong. POV.
To be fair to the BBC - if they had pitched that "Back to Earth" Coronation Street garbage to me - I would have shown them the door.
If they had pitched the series "proper" like the second Dave outing then it probably would have got more interest
While Back to Earth was shit and they should have done a proper episode its the BBC's fault. Look how many BBC sitcoms have been resurrected on other TV channels because the BBC are too lazy to give in.
While I thought that sitcom with Sharon and tracey was shit ITV did a good job bringing it back making it popular.