Why The 'Case of Kersey Village' Was An Impressive Time-Slip (Suffolk 1957)

[oldrover]

From oldrover,

..And those details have been largely addressed and seem to be in keeping with what the place was like back in 1950's..

Well. 1950 wasn't all that long ago. I for one was certainly alive.

But we now live in the land of social media. Perhaps someone who knows how can put out a call on something like Facebook asking for anyone who lived in Kersey during that period to step forward.

They would be able to describe how it actually was.

The apparent lack of electricity does not come as a surprise. I had relations in the village of Blacktoft on humberside that we used to visit when I was a child. Same period. And they did not have electricity. Didn't get it until quite late.
People forget that the National Grid wasn't always there.

Of course, a proper investigator who lived close by would already have ascertained things like that. Parish records would show who was around then. and the search would go on.

INT21

Well before my time but as you say, not that long ago.

There will be a Facebook group, there is for everything pretty much, I find them to be an incredibly useful resource. It's a good thought.

 

[Carl Grove]

recognized from the 1957 visit.

Had MacKenzie proceeded more reasonably, he would have discovered the Goymour family's pork and poultry butcher shop in Leys House (same side of the main lane; much closer to the church) was still operating in the mid 20th century. A verifiable butcher shop on the same side of the same lane at the same (un-slipped) time represents a substantial fly in the ointment of his time slip interpretation.

This also calls into question the reliability of Laing's testimony regarding:

(a) identification of Bridge House as the site of the beef carcass sighting; and
(b) an inability to see the church tower while at the reported butcher's shop.

Leys House sits practically in the shadow of Church Hill and the bell tower.

There was a second - and possibly even more likely - location where the boys might have seen hanging meat. This would have been one or another of the Stiff family's store properties within the village. Stiff's actually operated a full butcher's shop over in Hadleigh (circa 2 miles' distance), but (as far as I can tell to date) processed only pork and chickens at their Kersey location(s).[/QUOTE]

Here's the fallacious bit ... MacKenzie seized on the claim the Bridge House had contained a butcher shop centuries earlier and fell victim to confirmation bias, because it supported his theory (hope; whatever ... ) that a time slip explained the boys' odd experience.

The rational approach would have involved surveying what, if any, butcher shop(s) existed in Kersey village as of October 1957, then checking to see if any such shop's location matched what Laing identified as a particular site he recognized from the 1957 visit.

Had MacKenzie proceeded more reasonably, he would have discovered the Goymour family's pork and poultry butcher shop in Leys House (same side of the main lane; much closer to the church) was still operating in the mid 20th century. A verifiable butcher shop on the same side of the same lane at the same (un-slipped) time represents a substantial fly in the ointment of his time slip interpretation.

This also calls into question the reliability of Laing's testimony regarding:

(a) identification of Bridge House as the site of the beef carcass sighting; and
(b) an inability to see the church tower while at the reported butcher's shop.

Leys House sits practically in the shadow of Church Hill and the bell tower.

There was a second - and possibly even more likely - location where the boys might have seen hanging meat. This would have been one or another of the Stiff family's store properties within the village. Stiff's actually operated a full butcher's shop over in Hadleigh (circa 2 miles' distance), but (as far as I can tell to date) processed only pork and chickens at their Kersey location(s).

I don't want to continue criticising MacKenzie's work as he was a pretty good researcher, but, as you point out, had a bias -- he had a theory that time slips represented a kind of ESP-driven hallucination, and that this was a time slip. I think it might well have been a time slip, although there are one or two odd features that could support other notions.

I don't see the existence in 1957 of another butcher's shop in Kersey as a fly in the ointment -- in fact it would be odd if the village hadn't got one. But the butcher's that the three saw was not where the 1957 shop was, according to Laing's best judgement, and I would imagine that the Goymour business would not have just three rotting carcasses in an otherwise empty shop at that date -- unless business was extremely bad just then! Now you point out that the Goymour shop stood near the church, and claim that this throws Laing's testimony into question. Why? If it was a time slip, and the church tower had not yet been built, nor was Goymour's shop near it, then obviously Laing and the others wouldn't have seen either. This actually supports the time slip theory.

If the Stiffs shop just had pork and chickens, this doesn't throw any doubt on the time slip notion either.

 

[Carl Grove]

From oldrover,

..And those details have been largely addressed and seem to be in keeping with what the place was like back in 1950's..

Well. the 1950s wasn't all that long ago. I for one was certainly alive.

But we now live in the land of social media. Perhaps someone who knows how can put out a call on something like Facebook asking for anyone who lived in Kersey during that period to step forward.

They would be able to describe how it actually was.

The apparent lack of electricity does not come as a surprise. I had relations in the village of Blacktoft on humberside that we used to visit when I was a child. Same period. And they did not have electricity. Didn't get it until quite late.
People forget that the National Grid wasn't always there.

Of course, a proper investigator who lived close by would already have ascertained things like that. Parish records would show who was around then. and the search would go on.

INT21

Excellent idea!

According to MacKenzie, Kersey was connected to the national grid, and to a piped water supply, in 1950.

Some of Laing's comments, as he accompanied MacKenzie and local historian Leslie Cockayne around Kersey, are quite interesting. Seeing the local pubs, the Bell and the White Horse, he remarked "How could we have missed them?" They would have been there in 1957. At another point he was confused by a gap between houses, and Cockayne explained that the houses that had been there had been destroyed around 1900. Laing also found the place where they left the village and took a path off to the right, this being where the bells and the smoking chimneys had again been observed. The contrast between the thick smoke hanging over the village rooftops and the clear air that they had experienced inside the slip was quite dramatic, it seems.

 

[Carl Grove]

'Pealing' means there were multiple of the bells being rung. A 'full peal' is a complete cycle of such multi-bell ringing covering all the possible inter-bell sequences.

Do you have any recorded (e.g., in MacKenzie's book) description of precisely what sort of bell ringing the boys claimed to have heard both before and after the silent interlude?

No, this is what Laing said about their approach to the village:

"I can see clearly in my mind's eye the view and position of the roofs and church [tower] of Kersey just before we entered the lane from the fields. As we approached from the fields we could hear church bells ringing on our right.

"After we had climbed an iron fence from the fields, perhaps 100 yards from the church, the bells abruptly cut out."

And when leaving:

"We hurried out of the lane then suddenly we could hear the bells once more and saw smoke rising from chimneys, but none of the chimneys were smoking when we were in the village.... It was almost as if we'd walked back in time..."

Of course, if it was a hot summer day inside the village, nobody there would have been lighting their fires!

 

[oldrover]

You seem, as I somewhat expected, to have misunderstood my post and to have returned to your original position. I shall reiterate my main points more explicitly:

If you feel you need to Carl, please by all means do.

You say that you already employ the procedure (of analysing and correlating data as a preliminary stage of investigation) yet then reject its implications in the case of time slips. And then you revert to the approach of dissecting each case individually, with a view for finding some kind of "proof" that it took place.

Can you show me where I've done this Carl? I maintain that I use the same approach to this as I do in my own research, and that a large part of that will necessarily involve assessing whether an event is likely to have taken place in the way it's been reported, or whether it more likely results from misremembering, poor information, or in some cases, deliberate deceit. I see no reason not to apply this to Kersey. Are you suggesting perhaps that this isn't necessary, if you aren't please could you make it more explicit still why you choose to raise this point in your reply?

To make it plain, I am advocating the collection of multiple time slip data with a view to seeing what patterns are present (and I have already noted a few), and subjecting these data to statistical testing. There is an obvious parallel here with ufology, where some people (mostly those who have predetermined theories about what UFOs are), concentrate on finding some sighting which provides "absolute proof" that UFOs are either extraterrestrial or complete nonsense. This latter approach has been wholly unproductive. Rather I am following Vallee's approach in developing a basic classification of time slip cases and correlating elements of sightings with temporal, seasonal, geographic, demographic, etc. variables.

That's all fine, but first it'd be very persuasive if you could demonstrate the likelihood that these were time slip cases you were drawing patterns from. Especially worrying, is that you're not describing the information you're going to analyse as 'data which might support the idea of time slips', but as 'time slip data'. There's a leap of faith too far for some Carl. A failure to establish exactly where your data is coming from and what sort of phenomena generated is a fundamental error. All of which is a shame as I'm sure you've put a lot of work into this.

2. True enough, crimes take place. But (playing the sceptic) many reports of alleged crimes may turn out to be mistaken, malicious accusations and so on. My point in using this imagery (which I would have thought to be obvious) was to draw an analogy between obvious physical events and the material world, and the more subtle events that occur in the human mind.

Carl, let's be honest you raised this first as a counter to my objections to relying on eye witness testimony, nothing more, and you repeated this point again in post 166. It's a very well used argument, and as I explained to you previously, where I mentioned the idea of false allegations, there is no plausible way to use eye witness testimony in a criminal context as support for it as being accepted as the sole source of evidence.

A systematic approach to electricity would never have developed if our ancestors hadn't passed through the initial stage of observation and reporting of puzzling phenomena. Had the sceptical people been active in criticising these original reports, true, many false and misleading observations would have been rejected, but so too would many genuine and important observations.

You left an important bit out there, that's that they experimented, discussed, proposed and rejected ideas. None of what we've achieved has been the result of acceptance without critical analysis.

4. Regarding Kersey -- your summing up manages to ignore almost all the key elements of the case, namely the transition from a village with a church with bells pealing and smoke rising from chimneys in a cold autumn day to a village with no church visible, no smoke rising from chimneys, and no sound of bells, with bright hot sunlight and green trees; and then, after the witnesses exited, the reversion back to autumnal foliage and chimneys smoking once more and the bells ringing.

No, my summing up acknowledges that nothing there is best explained by a time slip, and that the account which contains all of these details were prepared 30 years after the event, which I know means they're highly suspect. If you take it as being literal and accurate I can see though why it might appear very compelling. But as I've said before, you know (based on what you've said) enough to realise how unwise that would be.

No, scepticism isn't a positive thing. Objectivity is. In the instance of time slips, it can be intimidating and can inhibit other witnesses from coming forward, and they are already reluctant to do that! Above all, scepticism is a way of protecting the status quo, of avoiding exposure to genuinely significant observations, and of compulsively imposing one's world view on others.

Objectivity and scepticism should go together. As I've said before, it's not the ideas that the sceptics find sub standard it's the methodology.

 

[oldrover]

I agree, MacKenzie didn't do a great job in interviewing Laing, and didn't control the pictures that he sent to him -- they were just a few picture postcards. Lets say there were six of them, and I imagine that most of these would show maybe five houses or cottages in Kersey. So he was able to pick the butchers shop out of about 30 possibles; this is better than significance at the 5% level. Certainly worth noting. Had he failed to pick a building that was once a butchers, I imagine you would proclaim that this proves how unreliable the story is!

Sorry, missed a bit.

As I've made clear, I haven't read the book so can only go on what I've read here. But no, it doesn't seem that McKenzie did a very good job at all. Which is tricky as it's his book which seems to be the most authoritative source for this whole thing.

Let's not say there were six of them Carl, and then go on to assume how many houses each showed and go on to come up with a statistical likelihood for his having picked the right one. Unless the number is actually known, and where they came from and what they showed exactly.

As to what my reaction would have been had he not picked one, as I've been trying to get across to you, it was 30 years later, I don't think it would make any difference whatsoever.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Laing also found the place where they left the village and took a path off to the right, this being where the bells and the smoking chimneys had again been observed. ...

Where exactly was this exit point?

 

[AlbertM2018]

@ dream-decoder

You wrote:

“Either they were mistaken and genuinely thought they'd witnessed something - or they told a white lie - we'll probably never know - and with the passing of time they may no longer actually remember which is the case...”

However, your “ mundane explanation” does not explain anything, it seems you are refusing to admit bare facts.

“…they were mistaken”??

But they weren’t mistaken at all!

On the contrary 2 young cadets saw Kersey village as IT REALLY WAS centuries before! They saw the BUTCHER’S SHOP as it really was, and no longer visible in 1957!
So, how can you write that “they were mistaken”?

A common feature of many “accounts” by skeptics, is that they simply and aprioristically refuse to handle this kind of phenomena in a scientific way.
To be clear: you never hear about people who saw fairies, gnomes, flying dragons, wizards, etc., those are clearly fabulous tales.
And yet, you hear about phenomena like haunting, UFO, time-slips, poltergeists, etc., that have been testified by innumerable and reliable persons, for centuries, in many locations.
Obviously, you may find fraudsters, or persons in good faith who simply were mistaken, that’s normal, you cannot find 100% credible narrations.
But in the same way, you cannot find 100% FRAUDS, or MISTAKES!

The fact that these phenomena are rarely occurring, does not mean that they cannot exist.

How many persons can jump 2.46 meters high? Just one (in 7.5 billion persons) , as far as I know, and he cannot reply anymore his jump.

How many persons can jump more than 8.90 meters long? Just 2 as far as I know, and they cannot reply anymore those performances.

How many times someone can see a river soliton (water of rivers flowing backward)?

How many times someone can see a “rogue ocean wave” 30 m. high?

So, we cannot dismiss all these narrations (as Randi and stubborn skeptics purport) by simply saying: “ah, these things cannot exist, and this is all fraud or error!”

 

[Dr_Baltar]

To be clear: you never hear about people who saw fairies, gnomes, flying dragons, wizards, etc., those are clearly fabulous tales.

Really? You haven't explored these forums much, have you?

 

[EnolaGaia]

"I can see clearly in my mind's eye the view and position of the roofs and church [tower] of Kersey just before we entered the lane from the fields. As we approached from the fields we could hear church bells ringing on our right.

Herein lies one of the major sources of ambiguity in the story ...

The location of this observation remains unknown, because it's unclear from what direction the boys were approaching Kersey. It is possible to approach Kersey from any direction with the church tower and / or the sound of the church's bell(s) 'on one's right' or 'to the right'.

The common interpretation - the only one so much as hinted at - is that they were approaching from the east or south / southeast.

Even this is speculative, given that we have no idea where the boys began their trek that morning. One is left to assume they started out from the barn where they'd stayed overnight. They were driven to the barn location the previous day / evening, and this trip took some time while winding through different roads and lanes. The only clear factoid we have is that there was a barn somewhere. Where?

"After we had climbed an iron fence from the fields, perhaps 100 yards from the church, the bells abruptly cut out."

This doesn't really settle the location / direction issue, because it would have been possible to cross from open field to a lane or central Kersey in the vicinity of the church from any direction. I haven't found any clues as to where this iron fence may have been, nor where (a lane? the village's central lane?) they found themselves once having climbed over it.

"We hurried out of the lane then suddenly we could hear the bells once more and saw smoke rising from chimneys, but none of the chimneys were smoking when we were in the village.... It was almost as if we'd walked back in time..."

The direction of exit is more clearly stated than the direction of approach, citing fields to the west. However, open fields lie west of all portions of the village, leaving it unclear which lane was the one from which they hurried. There are (and were ... ) side lanes in Kersey village (e.g., around 'The Green' area) in addition to the 'main street' running north / south.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Now you point out that the Goymour shop stood near the church, and claim that this throws Laing's testimony into question. Why? If it was a time slip, and the church tower had not yet been built, nor was Goymour's shop near it, then obviously Laing and the others wouldn't have seen either. This actually supports the time slip theory. ...

It leaves an opening for continuing to consider a time slip, but it doesn't support MacKenzie's interpretation. As far as I can tell, Leys House didn't exist prior to 1481 (when the tower was completed).

It undermines Laing's testimony (or maybe MacKenzie's parsing thereof ... ) because it negates one of the more tenuous bases for assuming the boys had slipped back in time - i.e., that the carcasses were in Bridge House, where a current owner claimed to have been told a butcher's shop had operated long before.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Navy cadets would be used to exercise etc and would not be troubled by a less than perfect nights sleep, if that was indeed the case.

That's a fairly sweeping generalisation to make. Do we know how long these boys had been cadets? Are all Navy cadets untroubled by exercise and lack of sleep? I would suggest they are all individuals, subject to many of the same foibles that all humans are.

 

[INT21]

Dr_Baltar,

You may be right. But it doesn't get us any nearer solving this.

INT21

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I would also suggest that after thirty years of pondering (probably even dreaming about) what he already regarded a strange experience, Laing would either have rationalised and dismissed the events, or the weirdness would have grown in his memory. I am sceptical of any suggestion that he would remember precisely what happened that day.​

 

[Carl Grove]

If you feel you need to Carl, please by all means do.




Can you show me where I've done this Carl? I maintain that I use the same approach to this as I do in my own research, and that a large part of that will necessarily involve assessing whether an event is likely to have taken place in the way it's been reported, or whether it more likely results from misremembering, poor information, or in some cases, deliberate deceit. I see no reason not to apply this to Kersey. Are you suggesting perhaps that this isn't necessary, if you aren't please could you make it more explicit still why you choose to raise this point in your reply?



That's all fine, but first it'd be very persuasive if you could demonstrate the likelihood that these were time slip cases you were drawing patterns from. Especially worrying, is that you're not describing the information you're going to analyse as 'data which might support the idea of time slips', but as 'time slip data'. There's a leap of faith too far for some Carl. A failure to establish exactly where your data is coming from and what sort of phenomena generated is a fundamental error. All of which is a shame as I'm sure you've put a lot of work into this.



Carl, let's be honest you raised this first as a counter to my objections to relying on eye witness testimony, nothing more, and you repeated this point again in post 166. It's a very well used argument, and as I explained to you previously, where I mentioned the idea of false allegations, there is no plausible way to use eye witness testimony in a criminal context as support for it as being accepted as the sole source of evidence.



You left an important bit out there, that's that they experimented, discussed, proposed and rejected ideas. None of what we've achieved has been the result of acceptance without critical analysis.



No, my summing up acknowledges that nothing there is best explained by a time slip, and that the account which contains all of these details were prepared 30 years after the event, which I know means they're highly suspect. If you take it as being literal and accurate I can see though why it might appear very compelling. But as I've said before, you know (based on what you've said) enough to realise how unwise that would be.



Objectivity and scepticism should go together. As I've said before, it's not the ideas that the sceptics find sub standard it's the methodology.

We have radically different approaches, that's for sure -- and by the way, what is your own field of research?

I'm not going to reply piecemeal any more, not least because this piecemeal process tends to reflect the hair-splitting way you deal with things. Does Kersey provide powerful evidence that the witnesses' experience was definitely a time slip? Of course it doesn't. In my view there is a fair (say 70%) likelihood that it was. Now you have repeatedly claimed that the witnesses couldn't remember that amount of detail accurately after 30 years, although I think most people who have had extremely strange and disturbing experiences might contest this (and nobody has done a study to determine how much people do recall in such circumstances, so we just don't know for sure). Reading Laing's description of the event tells me that he was, in many ways, the ideal witness -- observant, thoughtful, drawing upon his experience of country life to assess what he was seeing, and concluding that something strange was happening.

You object to my referring to time slip features, as if I accepted the existence of time slips, and frankly, I do. When a cluster of elements in a description reappears in other independent testimonies, when it is possible to develop a classification system that accounts for a substantial percentage of cases, then we can start to do some serious research. You object to my method by saying that the early researchers in electricity employed critical procedures to discuss and assess ideas, as so they should. But they didn't spend years debating whether electricity actually existed or not.

I have listed many of these features in this thread as being found at Kersey. This is why I am inclined to think that this may have been a time slip.

One question I have posed several times to you, and which you have pointedly refused to address is: All right, this case doesn't prove the existence of time slips. What evidence would you want that did, in your view, convince you of their existence?

 

[Carl Grove]

It leaves an opening for continuing to consider a time slip, but it doesn't support MacKenzie's interpretation. As far as I can tell, Leys House didn't exist prior to 1481 (when the tower was completed).

It undermines Laing's testimony (or maybe MacKenzie's parsing thereof ... ) because it negates one of the more tenuous bases for assuming the boys had slipped back in time - i.e., that the carcasses were in Bridge House, where a current owner claimed to have been told a butcher's shop had operated long before.

I don't think it negates Laing's testimony at all. The owner hadn't been "told that," as you put it, but was well aware of her house's history.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

In my view there is a fair (say 70%) likelihood that it was.

On what scientific basis you do you make that assessment?

 

[Carl Grove]

Herein lies one of the major sources of ambiguity in the story ...

The location of this observation remains unknown, because it's unclear from what direction the boys were approaching Kersey. It is possible to approach Kersey from any direction with the church tower and / or the sound of the church's bell(s) 'on one's right' or 'to the right'.

The common interpretation - the only one so much as hinted at - is that they were approaching from the east or south / southeast.

Even this is speculative, given that we have no idea where the boys began their trek that morning. One is left to assume they started out from the barn where they'd stayed overnight. They were driven to the barn location the previous day / evening, and this trip took some time while winding through different roads and lanes. The only clear factoid we have is that there was a barn somewhere. Where?

They clearly approached from the SE, and entered Kersey pretty much at its southernmost point, continued north up The Street, spent time resting in the sudden heat at the stream, then carried on north until they turned off and left the village.

 

[Carl Grove]

On what scientific basis you do you make that assessment?

It is a subjective estimate, based on studying 4-500 cases, taking into account the witness statements, the detailed description, and the typical types of time slip. If you can suggest a more "scientific" way of making that assessment, please describe it!

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Now you have repeatedly claimed that the witnesses couldn't remember that amount of detail accurately after 30 years, although I think most people who have had extremely strange and disturbing experiences might contest this (and nobody has done a study to determine how much people do recall in such circumstances, so we just don't know for sure).

Perhaps not, but there have been studies that determine how reliable humans are as witnesses. I don't see any method by which perceived strangeness of an event would a witness more reliable. Based on nothing other than my personal opinion, it would most likely have the opposite effect.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

It is a subjective estimate, based on studying 4-500 cases, taking into account the witness statements, the detailed description, and the typical types of time slip. If you can suggest a more "scientific" way of making that assessment, please describe it!

I can't suggest any way of making a scientific assessment, given all we are dealing with are essentially anecdotes.

 

[Carl Grove]

Perhaps not, but there have been studies that determine how reliable humans are as witnesses. I don't see any method by which perceived strangeness of an event would a witness more reliable. Based on nothing other than my personal opinion, it would most likely have the opposite effect.

My view is that experiences that are everyday and normal are far harder to recall, because the memory trace has no novel or high-information content and so is more likely to be assimilated into a standard form. Experiences that are strange or shocking are recalled more readily -- cf. the number of people who can recall precisely where they were and what they were doing when they heard of the Kennedy assasination.

 

[Carl Grove]

I can't suggest any way of making a scientific assessment, given all we are dealing with are essentially anecdotes.

Then, going back to some points I made previously, how would science ever have got going, given that prior to the development of sophisticated recording apparatus at a later stage, all the early researchers had to go on was their own and others' personal experiences?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I don't think it negates Laing's testimony at all. The owner hadn't been "told that," as you put it, but was well aware of her house's history.

Told, read, whatever ... Did anyone bother to check whether a butcher's shop had demonstrably operated at the Bridge House and / or how many butcher's shops may have been located there over the centuries?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Then, going back to some points I made previously, how would science ever have got going, given that prior to the development of sophisticated recording apparatus at a later stage, all the early researchers had to go on was their own and others' personal experiences?

By observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. In other words, the scientific method.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

My view is that experiences that are everyday and normal are far harder to recall, because the memory trace has no novel or high-information content and so is more likely to be assimilated into a standard form. Experiences that are strange or shocking are recalled more readily -- cf. the number of people who can recall precisely where they were and what they were doing when they heard of the Kennedy assasination.

Studies of witness testimony have not borne out that conclusion.

And remembering where you were when you heard about a particular event is not the same as being witness to an event.

 

[oldrover]

and by the way, what is your own field of research?

<- This lot here, and the people that knew them. Where many a hair is split, and facts are assigned likelihoods based on available evidence.

As for the rest of it, as much as I do think arguing methodology is an important part of this and all paranormal research, and would be very glad to continue in a more appropriate thread, here I think we should stick to Kersey. Especially as the more productive posts here are sticking on that subject.

As to the question which as you noted previously, I've already answered, what I'd consider evidence of a time slip, anything that's best explained by that idea. How would you quantify that, I don't know. It'd always be subjective to a degree, but an exhaustive and well presented investigation with a thorough and clear methodology would be a good start.

 

[EnolaGaia]

They clearly approached from the SE, and entered Kersey pretty much at its southernmost point, continued north up The Street, spent time resting in the sudden heat at the stream, then carried on north until they turned off and left the village.

If you can locate a specific citation indicating they were - or had to be - approaching from the southeast I'd love to see it. One reasonable indicator of their direction of approach would simply be to specify where their starting point (and presumably their end point) had been.

A south-to-north traversal of the main street is the most common description of their movement through the village, but this is not consistently indicated in MacKenzie's text (either in his voice or via his retelling of Laing's experience).

More specifically, their exit is as murky as their entry.

In post #22 you quoted MacKenzie's account of Laing's testimony as follows:

"... We hurried out of the lane then suddenly we could hear the bells once more and saw the smoke rising from the chimneys... When we left the laneway and entered the fields to the west we ran for a hundred yards as if to shake off the weird feeling."

MacKenzie's synopsis of the incident says:

... By this time, the feeling of uneasiness increased; the youths felt they were surrounded by invisible watchers. Their pace grew faster as they went up the village street and eventually they took to their heels. After turning a corner at the top of the street, they paused to take a breath and look back. The silence was now broken by the sound of church bells, smoke hung in the air that in the village had been crystal clear, and behind the trees at the southern end of the village the church was visible...

The former suggests they left the lane / street and exited into the fields to the west. They could have done this without having to travel uphill to the northern end of the main thoroughfare.

The latter states they proceeded all the way up 'The Street' (northern part of the central lane) and turned a corner. There is indeed a corner at the top of the northern end of the village, but if they'd turned that corner they'd have been going eastward. For them to have gone into the fields west of the village they'd have had to either:

(a) backtrack to the corner, pass the houses there, and then cut cross-country, or
(b) turn the corner then turn left onto the Priory Hill road / lane that heads westward north of the village.

 

[Carl Grove]

If you can locate a specific citation indicating they were - or had to be - approaching from the southeast I'd love to see it. One reasonable indicator of their direction of approach would simply be to specify where their starting point (and presumably their end point) had been.

A south-to-north traversal of the main street is the most common description of their movement through the village, but this is not consistently indicated in MacKenzie's text (either in his voice or via his retelling of Laing's experience).

More specifically, their exit is as murky as their entry.

In post #22 you quoted MacKenzie's account of Laing's testimony as follows:



MacKenzie's synopsis of the incident says:



The former suggests they left the lane / street and exited into the fields to the west. They could have done this without having to travel uphill to the northern end of the main thoroughfare.

The latter states they proceeded all the way up 'The Street' (northern part of the central lane) and turned a corner. There is indeed a corner at the top of the northern end of the village, but if they'd turned that corner they'd have been going eastward. For them to have gone into the fields west of the village they'd have had to either:

(a) backtrack to the corner, pass the houses there, and then cut cross-country, or
(b) turn the corner then turn left onto the Priory Hill road / lane that heads westward north of the village.

Yes, I had been assuming that they would have turned east, as their immediate task would be to return to their start point (the barn) and report. I just double checked the book, and it does say "west" -- possibly a transcription error, of course -- but the east direction seems more logical and more plausible geographically. Once again, a simple map showing the path of the three cadets through the village would have been worth a thousand words! (Which is why I put several maps and aerial photos in my Rougham report.) [Same problem with the Versailles case -- the map in the Moberly-Jourdain book showing the "route taken by the witnesses" doesn't show any route at all!]

Going back to a point discussed earlier, whether the alleged greenish colouration of the ox carcasses could be due to the green window glass -- I wonder whether any of the houses in the village would have had the original green glass windows in the 1950s? It seems unlikely, as I would have imagined that when better glass had been developed, most people would have switched to that.

Regarding the point of entry, it might be an idea to get hold of a 1950s OS map of the area and check that.

 

[Carl Grove]

<- This lot here, and the people that knew them. Where many a hair is split, and facts are assigned likelihoods based on available evidence.

As for the rest of it, as much as I do think arguing methodology is an important part of this and all paranormal research, and would be very glad to continue in a more appropriate thread, here I think we should stick to Kersey. Especially as the more productive posts here are sticking on that subject.

As to the question which as you noted previously, I've already answered, what I'd consider evidence of a time slip, anything that's best explained by that idea. How would you quantify that, I don't know. It'd always be subjective to a degree, but an exhaustive and well presented investigation with a thorough and clear methodology would be a good start.

It's really a matter of detail. Would a witness who reported a time slip in a city centre, as at Liverpool, impress you if someone could find CCTV footage showing him vanishing from view at the location he or she specified? Or would there be some artifact that he could bring back from another time? Or a report from the time visited describing a man appearing and disappearing, maybe also on CCTV? Or independent testimony from other witnesses (something that comes close in two cases known to me)?