LOL, I agree with you. It's quite funny though.

Surprised it was actually debated on a late night radio show LOL.

Oh I thought it was going to be about this photo:

http://www.topstrange.com...veler-1451

ZombieKitten said:

Oh I thought it was going to be about this photo:

http://www.topstrange.com...veler-1451

LOL. Any proof it wasn't photoshopped? Plus the camera thing LOL. Don't forget folks, if your ever going to go back in time, bring a camera! Because when you get back to the present day and develop it, nobody would think to question why you took random pictures of people from the 1940's. Talk about suspect LOL.

thesexofit said:

ZombieKitten said:

Oh I thought it was going to be about this photo:

http://www.topstrange.com...veler-1451

LOL. Any proof it wasn't photoshopped? Plus the camera thing LOL. Don't forget folks, if your ever going to go back in time, bring a camera! Because when you get back to the present day and develop it, nobody would think to question why you took random pictures of people from the 1940's. Talk about suspect LOL.

I think it was hanging up in a museum or something?? I dunno.

Another blog I read completely debunked that one, the sunglasses AREN'T modern, they are normal ones with those leather sides you can button on like these:

http://www.worthpoint.com...r-77403955

The camera

there were already compact cameras available in the 40s.

the HAIR is very 40s

but the T-shirt I found most difficult to believe.

who wore a print on a t-shirt back then?

ZombieKitten said:

thesexofit said:

LOL. Any proof it wasn't photoshopped? Plus the camera thing LOL. Don't forget folks, if your ever going to go back in time, bring a camera! Because when you get back to the present day and develop it, nobody would think to question why you took random pictures of people from the 1940's. Talk about suspect LOL.

I think it was hanging up in a museum or something?? I dunno.

Another blog I read completely debunked that one, the sunglasses AREN'T modern, they are normal ones with those leather sides you can button on like these:

http://www.worthpoint.com...r-77403955

The camera

there were already compact cameras available in the 40s.

the HAIR is very 40s

but the T-shirt I found most difficult to believe.

who wore a print on a t-shirt back then?

Nothing in this pic looks modern - even the top. Letterman knits were all the rage in the 30s and 40s. The shirt looks like a fine knit to me and the lighter colour around the W looks like a chanille knit (which would be historically correct). Probably was made by his grandma.

I have one question:

WHO THE HELL WAS SHE TALKING TO?!?

PRNelson said:

Ok, this nonsense is being 'debated' on a late night radio Show. Thought I'd share it here as I know many of you are into this kind of thing. Here you go.. http://www.youtube.com/wa...ata_player My opinion? Total nonsense. Enjoy!

http://technolog.msnbc.ms...-from-1928

it's plausible

[Edited 10/26/10 10:35am]

Xibalba said:

I have one question:

WHO THE HELL WAS SHE TALKING TO?!?

That was my exact thought! If it were a time traveler, there would have to be someone else on the other end of the phone. Not to mention the infrastructure necessary to send the signals.

Ridiculous.

I love that that's what it looks like, though.

And I love that it reminds people that things may not be what they look like. We can rationally and logically deduce that it's not possible, no matter what we are seeing. It's the perfect example of that.

The concept of time travel is illogical.

Will only douchey people get to time travel? People who can't get off their cell phones and shaded hipsters?

Number23 said:

it has to be true the guy is from the UK so it must be true!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it has to be true the guy is from the UK so it must be true!

Us Brits never lie.

Lisa10 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it has to be true the guy is from the UK so it must be true!

Us Brits never lie.

and they can sell you modestly better products and 5X their value too! Like vacume cleaners and fans.

So as a kid, I was a huge nerd ( , I know, right?) and my friends and I had a long debate about time travel in the 6th grade. Here were our problems with it.

1) Why would an object or person be able to escape the effects of time, even if they learned to move backward through it? If time is a measurement of change and not just decay from galactic travel, reversing it would reverse aging. Marty McFly would shrink to a baby, a fetus, an ovum and a sperm cell before Doc stopped the car. Doc would emerge a young man, unaware of what had occurred. Or the car itself would fall to its pieces once it reached the date of its construction.

2) If for some reason, that's not the case and you escape the time stream entirely and re enter where you want, can you alter events? If you succeed, your present condition would be perfect and you wouldn't go back in the first place. Thus nobody actually ends up killing Hitler.

[Edited 10/27/10 5:40am]

DrRockdapuss said:

So as a kid, I was a huge nerd ( , I know, right?) and my friends and I had a long debate about time travel in the 6th grade. Here were our problems with it.

1) Why would an object or person be able to escape the effects of time, even if they learned to move backward through it? If time is a measurement of change and not just decay from galactic travel, reversing it would reverse aging. Marty McFly would shrink to a baby, a fetus, an ovum and a sperm cell before Doc stopped the car. Doc would emerge a young man, unaware of what had occurred. Or the car itself would fall to its pieces once it reached the date of its construction.

2) If for some reason, that's not the case and you escape the time stream entirely and re enter where you want, can you alter events? If you succeed, your present condition would be perfect and you wouldn't go back in the first place. Thus nobody actually ends up killing Hitler.

[Edited 10/27/10 5:40am]

I was obsessed with things like that too as a kid. (And still as an adult too.) Comic books added another rule: That you couldn't exist twice in the same time. So Superman couldn't go back to last week and meet himself. This one always seemed like a writer's construct rather than a "real" rule.

As for yours, I'm not sure I agree.

1) That doesn't make sense to me, because that seems to suggest that time is analagous to fate. I don't believe that. Or to look at it another way, we're all a collection of living cells, and the cells that comprised me as a baby are gone and have been replaced by new ones. If I would shrink down to a baby as I traveled back in time, how would the old cells come back? Where would all that come from? And if they don't come back, why is it important that I reverse in age? (Plus, where would the current me go? Since matter cannot be destroyed, what would happen to it?)

2) I think you have no choice--you HAVE to alter events. The fact that you're there changes events. The way I see it, on a universal level, my standing on a street corner decades before I was born would be no different than killing Hitler or preventing JFK's assassination. (Meaning that it's all the same to the universe; if it cares about a big change, it would care just as much about a little one simply because it can't possibly "care" at all.)

I could be wrong about all that, but those are my thoughs. (I hope I at least made sense.)

Efan said:

DrRockdapuss said:

So as a kid, I was a huge nerd ( , I know, right?) and my friends and I had a long debate about time travel in the 6th grade. Here were our problems with it.

1) Why would an object or person be able to escape the effects of time, even if they learned to move backward through it? If time is a measurement of change and not just decay from galactic travel, reversing it would reverse aging. Marty McFly would shrink to a baby, a fetus, an ovum and a sperm cell before Doc stopped the car. Doc would emerge a young man, unaware of what had occurred. Or the car itself would fall to its pieces once it reached the date of its construction.

2) If for some reason, that's not the case and you escape the time stream entirely and re enter where you want, can you alter events? If you succeed, your present condition would be perfect and you wouldn't go back in the first place. Thus nobody actually ends up killing Hitler.

[Edited 10/27/10 5:40am]

I was obsessed with things like that too as a kid. (And still as an adult too.) Comic books added another rule: That you couldn't exist twice in the same time. So Superman couldn't go back to last week and meet himself. This one always seemed like a writer's construct rather than a "real" rule.

As for yours, I'm not sure I agree.

1) That doesn't make sense to me, because that seems to suggest that time is analagous to fate. I don't believe that. Or to look at it another way, we're all a collection of living cells, and the cells that comprised me as a baby are gone and have been replaced by new ones. If I would shrink down to a baby as I traveled back in time, how would the old cells come back? Where would all that come from? And if they don't come back, why is it important that I reverse in age? (Plus, where would the current me go? Since matter cannot be destroyed, what would happen to it?)

2) I think you have no choice--you HAVE to alter events. The fact that you're there changes events. The way I see it, on a universal level, my standing on a street corner decades before I was born would be no different than killing Hitler or preventing JFK's assassination. (Meaning that it's all the same to the universe; if it cares about a big change, it would care just as much about a little one simply because it can't possibly "care" at all.)

I could be wrong about all that, but those are my thoughs. (I hope I at least made sense.)

1) I didn't mean time as fate. I mean in terms of the aging process, if you can rewind time, but still exist inside of it, you rewind yourself too. And nothing can exist before it exists, in that case. So Back to the Future could only go back as far as the completion of the flux capacitor delorean.

2) If you can exist outside time and change things, like kill hitler before the holocaust, now there never was one. Now you don't know who Hitler is. So who are you goin back to kill? Nobody. So you never end up killing him. See?

DrRockdapuss said:

Efan said:

I was obsessed with things like that too as a kid. (And still as an adult too.) Comic books added another rule: That you couldn't exist twice in the same time. So Superman couldn't go back to last week and meet himself. This one always seemed like a writer's construct rather than a "real" rule.

As for yours, I'm not sure I agree.

1) That doesn't make sense to me, because that seems to suggest that time is analagous to fate. I don't believe that. Or to look at it another way, we're all a collection of living cells, and the cells that comprised me as a baby are gone and have been replaced by new ones. If I would shrink down to a baby as I traveled back in time, how would the old cells come back? Where would all that come from? And if they don't come back, why is it important that I reverse in age? (Plus, where would the current me go? Since matter cannot be destroyed, what would happen to it?)

2) I think you have no choice--you HAVE to alter events. The fact that you're there changes events. The way I see it, on a universal level, my standing on a street corner decades before I was born would be no different than killing Hitler or preventing JFK's assassination. (Meaning that it's all the same to the universe; if it cares about a big change, it would care just as much about a little one simply because it can't possibly "care" at all.)

I could be wrong about all that, but those are my thoughs. (I hope I at least made sense.)

1) I didn't mean time as fate. I mean in terms of the aging process, if you can rewind time, but still exist inside of it, you rewind yourself too. And nothing can exist before it exists, in that case. So Back to the Future could only go back as far as the completion of the flux capacitor delorean.

2) If you can exist outside time and change things, like kill hitler before the holocaust, now there never was one. Now you don't know who Hitler is. So who are you goin back to kill? Nobody. So you never end up killing him. See?

1) Right, but just because we measure the aging process over time doesn't mean that aging happens because of time. And who's to say that traveling through time places you outside of time itself?

2) The world wouldn't know who Hitler was, but you would because you killed him and you remember the world the way it was. Say you did kill him; you would theoretically either stay in the 1920s (or whenever you killed him) or you would maybe have a way of getting back to your regular time, sometime after the point you went back. Then you would see how the world had changed as a result of your actions.

Efan said:

DrRockdapuss said:

1) I didn't mean time as fate. I mean in terms of the aging process, if you can rewind time, but still exist inside of it, you rewind yourself too. And nothing can exist before it exists, in that case. So Back to the Future could only go back as far as the completion of the flux capacitor delorean.

2) If you can exist outside time and change things, like kill hitler before the holocaust, now there never was one. Now you don't know who Hitler is. So who are you goin back to kill? Nobody. So you never end up killing him. See?

1) Right, but just because we measure the aging process over time doesn't mean that aging happens because of time. And who's to say that traveling through time places you outside of time itself?

2) The world wouldn't know who Hitler was, but you would because you killed him and you remember the world the way it was. Say you did kill him; you would theoretically either stay in the 1920s (or whenever you killed him) or you would maybe have a way of getting back to your regular time, sometime after the point you went back. Then you would see how the world had changed as a result of your actions.

But if you fixed the problem, you wouldn't go back in the first place cause there's no problem to fix. That's the paradox.

If I gave you a time machine right now and gave you the opportunity to save Martin Luther King from that car crash that killed him in 1958, would you do it?

DrRockdapuss said:

Efan said:

1) Right, but just because we measure the aging process over time doesn't mean that aging happens because of time. And who's to say that traveling through time places you outside of time itself?

2) The world wouldn't know who Hitler was, but you would because you killed him and you remember the world the way it was. Say you did kill him; you would theoretically either stay in the 1920s (or whenever you killed him) or you would maybe have a way of getting back to your regular time, sometime after the point you went back. Then you would see how the world had changed as a result of your actions.

But if you fixed the problem, you wouldn't go back in the first place cause there's no problem to fix. That's the paradox.

If I gave you a time machine right now and gave you the opportunity to save Martin Luther King from that car crash that killed him in 1958, would you do it?

I don't believe that would be the paradox. Let's say I have the means right now, and I go back in time and save MLK from being assassinated. I'm still there in 1968. Presumably, I could just stay there and start a new life. Or I can go back to 2010. But the me who exists in 2010 (presuming the world hasn't changed so much that I don't exist for some reason in 2010) would be there, and he would not have gone through time to save MLK. So I couldn't go back to 2010 and pick up my life where I left off. To me, the paradox would be that I have created an extra "me" somewhere in time, not something else.

Efan said:

DrRockdapuss said:

But if you fixed the problem, you wouldn't go back in the first place cause there's no problem to fix. That's the paradox.

If I gave you a time machine right now and gave you the opportunity to save Martin Luther King from that car crash that killed him in 1958, would you do it?

I don't believe that would be the paradox. Let's say I have the means right now, and I go back in time and save MLK from being assassinated. I'm still there in 1968. Presumably, I could just stay there and start a new life. Or I can go back to 2010. But the me who exists in 2010 (presuming the world hasn't changed so much that I don't exist for some reason in 2010) would be there, and he would not have gone through time to save MLK. So I couldn't go back to 2010 and pick up my life where I left off. To me, the paradox would be that I have created an extra "me" somewhere in time, not something else.

I think as long as you go back, there's only one of you. But if you stay, then sure, there might be two.

DrRockdapuss said:

Efan said:

I don't believe that would be the paradox. Let's say I have the means right now, and I go back in time and save MLK from being assassinated. I'm still there in 1968. Presumably, I could just stay there and start a new life. Or I can go back to 2010. But the me who exists in 2010 (presuming the world hasn't changed so much that I don't exist for some reason in 2010) would be there, and he would not have gone through time to save MLK. So I couldn't go back to 2010 and pick up my life where I left off. To me, the paradox would be that I have created an extra "me" somewhere in time, not something else.

I think as long as you go back, there's only one of you. But if you stay, then sure, there might be two.

That doesn't make sense to me, though. If you go back to 2010 where you started, you wouldn't be in the world that you recognize. That's a world where MLK was not assassinated in 1968, and who knows how much else would be different? The "you" who was born into that world would by definition be different from the "you" who went back in time and prevented MLK's killing. And that "you" would have no reason to go back in time anymore (or at least would go back for a different reason). So there would be two of you. And the you who went back in time would be the one who doesn't belong there. That to me would be the paradox.

Efan said:

DrRockdapuss said:

I think as long as you go back, there's only one of you. But if you stay, then sure, there might be two.

That doesn't make sense to me, though. If you go back to 2010 where you started, you wouldn't be in the world that you recognize. That's a world where MLK was not assassinated in 1968, and who knows how much else would be different? The "you" who was born into that world would by definition be different from the "you" who went back in time and prevented MLK's killing. And that "you" would have no reason to go back in time anymore (or at least would go back for a different reason). So there would be two of you. And the you who went back in time would be the one who doesn't belong there. That to me would be the paradox.

That's almost what I'm sayin. Minus the duplicate. But the problem solved leaves no motive to go back in the first place. So then you wouldn't solve the problem.

how/why is this getting so much press?

and it sure looks to me like on of several battery opperated deviced around at the time. The thing she is holding seesm to be the size and shape of the battery used. And who is she talking to? Maybe she was testing it out?

Xibalba said:

I have one question:

WHO THE HELL WAS SHE TALKING TO?!?

exactly, I can't get reception in my apartment and she gets it in the 20's?!

it would be impossible (sans a parallel universe) to change anything.

paradox. it is like Harry potter, all the things they thought they saw they did not see, as when they go back in time they are there to make sure it doesn't. but at no point do they change anything,

NDRU said:

Xibalba said:

I have one question:

WHO THE HELL WAS SHE TALKING TO?!?

exactly, I can't get reception in my apartment and she gets it in the 20's?!

she was Maxwell Smart's mum!