• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Time Or Dimensional Slips

I’ve not heard of some of these Bold Street ones before. They really fascinate me. Why the 50s and the 60s and didn’t anyone in the 50s and the 60s see people in unusual clothes?
As ive doubtless said elsewhere in this thread the primary source for the claims about Bold Street is the wholey unreliable Tom Slemen, who as with all of his stories involve only first names and imaginative accounts of people's inner dialogue. As far as I'm aware none of the alleged experiencers of these time slips has ever been fully identified and certainly never interviewed. The case of Sean, the shoplifter, did apparently appear in the Liverpool Echo at the time, but with the same vague and anonymous details.

What I can say is that Bold Street's reputation as a centre for time slips exists soley on websites like ths one and is wholey unknown to the people of Liverpool at large. I've been down the street a million times and the only thing reminiscent of another era is me.
 
As ive doubtless said elsewhere in this thread the primary source for the claims about Bold Street is the wholey unreliable Tom Slemen, who as with all of his stories involve only first names and imaginative accounts of people's inner dialogue. As far as I'm aware none of the alleged experiencers of these time slips has ever been fully identified and certainly never interviewed. The case of Sean, the shoplifter, did apparently appear in the Liverpool Echo at the time, but with the same vague and anonymous details.

What I can say is that Bold Street's reputation as a centre for time slips exists soley on websites like ths one and is wholey unknown to the people of Liverpool at large. I've been down the street a million times and the only thing reminiscent of another era is me.
I have to disagree with your blanket rejection of Tom Slemen's time slip cases. Yes, he has included quite a few dubious stories, but most of them strike me as fairly reliable. Your point about identifying witnesses is important, and that is what I have tried to do. Obviously some witnesses don't want their names published, but where Slemen quotes the full name(s) of witnesses, I have checked the genealogical records. Most of the cases that I have regarded as reliable turn out to confirm that persons of the correct name and age were indeed present in the records, born either in Liverpool or surrounding areas. However, alleged witnesses named in the more dodgy stories -- especially those which are written with extensive dialogue which nobody could have remembered anyway, and presented in a fictional style -- don't match the records. I think most of these occur in his later books, suggesting that his commitment to preparing 30-odd books on paranormal stories from Liverpool led him to pad out the later ones with fanciful stuff.
Regarding other sources -- Slemen has published over 100 time slip cases, the local Parascience group say they have 100 cases on record but have published only 5, and I have found a further dozen or so from personal posts and accounts. So the city centre at Liverpool has indeed generated far more time slip cases than any comparable area anywhere.
 
I’ve not heard of some of these Bold Street ones before. They really fascinate me. Why the 50s and the 60s and didn’t anyone in the 50s and the 60s see people in unusual clothes?

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/11/mysterious-time-slips-on-a-liverpool-street/
Quite a few of the Liverpool cases do mention Victorian time slips. As for why witnesses in the 50s and 60s might not have worried too much about seeing people in unusual clothes, I think it was because Liverpool was for a long time the centre of pop culture and witnesses might not have thought anything of it. Some of the cases do suggest the possibility of identifying possible witnesses, e.g. the Imogen incident at Mothercare, but Slemen has never (so far as we know) made the effort.
 
I’ve not heard of some of these Bold Street ones before. They really fascinate me. Why the 50s and the 60s and didn’t anyone in the 50s and the 60s see people in unusual clothes?

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/11/mysterious-time-slips-on-a-liverpool-street/

Interesting. Though possibly not for all of the right reasons.

(As a side note I don't think that I would ever choose to describe Bold Street as 'Posh'.)

I find it a little frustrating that the writer has provided no sources for the majority of the experiences he is describing here. Even the story which was relaid to him has no individual attached to it by name. It's still an anonymous tale.

There are obvious quirks in this for British readers (the fashion in which High Street stores are referred to as if they were tiny curious independent retailers) but what I find of most interest is that once again we return to our old friend 'Frank's' Bold Street tale. Only here several key details differ.

For example Tom Slemen's telling of this story refers to the bookshop in the story as 'Dillons'. Which in this 1996 account would be correct. The Dillons chain was operated by Thorn EMI back in the 90s, who would later acquire the HMV Group, and then the Waterstones chain in 1998. After that point they started to rebrand Dillons stores as Waterstones, but at the time of the original account it would very much have been 'Dillons the Bookseller'.

Tom Slemen describes Frank as "an off-duty policeman from Melling". The MU piece however states that Frank "... was supposedly an ex-Policeman". This may be a UK-US language divide misinterpreting of 'off-duty' as 'no longer a copper', possibly. Or it may well be that at the point Brent Swancer of Mysterious Universe heard of this account Frank was retired (or had left the Force of other volition) and he has assumed that he was also 'an ex-policeman' at the time of the incident in 1996.

While the Mysterious Universe account does not mention arriving via Central Station, but it does basically start in the same place. Where we differ more specifically is in what follows that. Both state that wife Carol goes to the bookstore. But whereas Tom Slemen tells us that Frank went up to a "record store in Ranelagh Street to look for a CD " the MU account has Frank bumping into an unnamed acquaintance and then chatting while his wife went over to Dillons.

Here things diverge slightly further. Slemen's account specifically refers to a timescale of 20 mins and Frank returning to Bold Street after walking up "the incline near the Lyceum". MU do not state a timescale or state that Frank left the vicinity of Bold Street at all. That account simply says that he finished having his conversation with this unnamed acquaintance and appears to still be on Bold Street at that point.

In the MU version Frank's response to the initial experience is that "he had the sudden and odd feeling that he did not recognize where he was". That it was "a very disorientating feeling". The general tone here seems to suggest almost a sense of disorientating bewilderment in Frank, which is not echoed in Slemen's piece. There he is portrayed as somewhat more rational. It's hard to tell of this is dramatic license or different understanding of events.

In Slemen's account the scene is described as "somehow [entering] an oasis of quietness". The background volume and ambiance is not really addressed in the MU piece. Nor the calmness Slemen's 'quiet' version implies

A note here: If you are one of those who has previously criticised Tom Slemen for embellishment? May I point out that Slemen's decription of "...this really unnerved him" seems positively restrained next to the MU's description of "... his growing confusing and creeping sense that something was definitely wrong". :)

Both pieces describe the people Frank sees in the vicinity as being dressed in clothing from the 1940s or 1950s. But only Slemen's version states that "He realised that he had somehow walked into the Bold Street of forty-odd years ago". That conclusion is not made in the MU piece.

The 1950s 'Caplan's' van beeping at Frank appears in both accounts. But in MU it is beeping for him to get out of the way. In the Slemen piece it is "beeping as it narrowly missed him" because Frank is walking down what he knows as a pedestrianised road, where a van was unlikely to be driving unless delivering goods. I do wonder if pedestrianisation is a thing in the US. Maybe that's why it doesn't get a mention here. I'm not in a place to really know.

In Slemen's version Frank crosses the road to find that the bookstore is no longer a bookstore, but a store "with the name 'Cripps' over its two entrances". In the MU version Frank looks for bookstore but is unable to locate it. The result is Frank becoming confused and he "began wandering around to see if he could get his bearings straight". Again the effect the experience is having on Frank underwrites him as not being 100% with it.

In relation to 'Cripps' Slemen's version says "He looked in the window of Cripps and saw no books on display, but womens' handbags and shoes." Whereas the MU version "... and in the windows were not books, but rather women's dresses and shoes of a similarly vintage design as the people walking along all around him ..."

Both accounts reference the girl Franks spots in more modern clothing. But only Slemen's version actually describes her appearance in any detail ("a girl of about twenty, dressed in the clothes of a mid-1990s girl; hipsters and a lime-coloured sleeveless top. The bag she carried had the name Miss Selfridges on it, which really reassured the policeman that he was still somehow partly in 1996.")

The MU piece describes the girl as "... standing at the entrance of the store looking just as confused as he was". At no point is she described as looking confused in the Slemen account, merely that upon seeing something more familiar Frank "smiled at the girl as she walked past him and entered Cripps".

In the MU account both Frank and the girl enter together, with "quizzical looks on their faces". Once they cross the threshold Frank sees that inside they are back in Waterstones, and nothing is amiss. The girl looks "... around in shock", and expresses confusion that "it wasn’t the clothing store she thought it would be". This is quite a different tone to the Slemen article.

But in Semen's account Frank follows the girl into Cripps. As he does the interior in front of him changes "in a flash to the interior of Dillons Bookshop". The girl is then on her way back out of the store and Frank grabs her by the arm. He asks "Did you see that then?" and "the girl calmly said, "Yeah. I thought it was a new shop that had opened. I was going in to look at the clothes, and it's a bookshop"." Note that there is a lack of shock in this account. It notes that she's calm, as she responds. Slemen then notes that "The girl just laughed, shook her head, and walked out again. Frank said the girl looked back and shook her head in disbelief. " A very different tone. No shock. No concern. Actual laughter at something odd just having happened.

The MU version does not mention that Frank relayed this incident to his wife Carol, or that she hadn't noticed anything strange. It does however follow up that "It would not be until later that Frank would figure out that “Cripps” had been a popular, historical traditional dressmaking shop that had opened in 1848 and closed down in the 1970s, and that the name on the van “Caplan’s,” was also a delivery business that had closed down long ago".

I would genuinely be interested to know what account Mysterious Universe's Brent Swancer was drawing from, as while both accounts broadly describe the same event there are enough differences in the two to raise further questions.

Both Swancer and Sleman are of course telling a story with a specific audience in mind. But are we simply looking at a difference in tone or have they been told slightly different stories.?
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with your blanket rejection of Tom Slemen's time slip cases. Yes, he has included quite a few dubious stories, but most of them strike me as fairly reliable.

Why should anyone believe someone who's a proven fabricator? Catching people lying in daily life makes you disbelieve anything else they say. It's the same for a writer. As Slemen's output is full of what you've charitably called 'dubious stories', I for one don't trust a word he says.
 
Why should anyone believe someone who's a proven fabricator? Catching people lying in daily life makes you disbelieve anything else they say. It's the same for a writer. As Slemen's output is full of what you've charitably called 'dubious stories', I for one don't trust a word he says.

I think it's probably a little unfair to tar him entirely. I certainly believe that Slemen embellishes. He is a writer addressing a very specific audience, ad he does so in tried and tested fashion. But, as I say above, comparing his version of the account to Brent Swancer's version the one thing that (and believe me, I never expected to utter these words) surprises me is that in comparison Slemen almost appears to undrembellish. No fear. No sense of dread and anxiety laden confusion in his account. Plenty in this more recent one.

I cannot say with certainty that Tom Slemen categorically *doesn't* make stuff up. But that's also why I'd love to know how Brent Swancer came by this.
 
I think it's probably a little unfair to tar him entirely. I certainly believe that Slemen embellishes. He is a writer addressing a very specific audience, ad he does so in tried and tested fashion. But, as I say above, comparing his version of the account to Brent Swancer's version the one thing that (and believe me, I never expected to utter these words) surprises me is that in comparison Slemen almost appears to undrembellish. No fear. No sense of dread and anxiety laden confusion in his account. Plenty in this more recent one.

I cannot say with certainty that Tom Slemen categorically *doesn't* make stuff up. But that's also why I'd love to know how Brent Swancer came by this.

You either believe a writer's telling the truth or you don't. It's fiction or fact. If Slemen wants to write Liverpool-based ghost fiction he should get on with that and stop trying to pull the wool.
 
You either believe a writer's telling the truth or you don't. It's fiction or fact. If Slemen wants to write Liverpool-based ghost fiction he should get on with that and stop trying to pull the wool.


I don't disagree. And again, this is why it would be great to get some kind of sources out of him. To help confirm or deny. But I think that a second person recounting this story, with enough differences to suggest that it could have come from a source other than Slemen, interests me.
 
Why should anyone believe someone who's a proven fabricator? Catching people lying in daily life makes you disbelieve anything else they say. It's the same for a writer. As Slemen's output is full of what you've charitably called 'dubious stories', I for one don't trust a word he says.
I can see your point although that implies that you don't believe any of our politicians either...
 
Interesting. Though possibly not for all of the right reasons.

(As a side note I don't think that I would ever choose to describe Bold Street as 'Posh'.)

I find it a little frustrating that the writer has provided no sources for the majority of the experiences he is describing here. Even the story which was relaid to him has no individual attached to it by name. It's still an anonymous tale.

There are obvious quirks in this for British readers (the fashion in which High Street stores are referred to as if they were tiny curious independent retailers) but what I find of most interest is that once again we return to our old friend 'Frank's' Bold Street tale. Only here several key details differ.

For example Tom Slemen's telling of this story refers to the bookshop in the story as 'Dillons'. Which in this 1996 account would be correct. The Dillons chain was operated by Thorn EMI back in the 90s, who would later acquire the HMV Group, and then the Waterstones chain in 1998. After that point they started to rebrand Dillons stores as Waterstones, but at the time of the original account it would very much have been 'Dillons the Bookseller'.

Tom Slemen describes Frank as "an off-duty policeman from Melling". The MU piece however states that Frank "... was supposedly an ex-Policeman". This may be a UK-US language divide misinterpreting of 'off-duty' as 'no longer a copper', possibly. Or it may well be that at the point Brent Swancer of Mysterious Universe heard of this account Frank was retired (or had left the Force of other volition) and he has assumed that he was also 'an ex-policeman' at the time of the incident in 1996.

While the Mysterious Universe account does not mention arriving via Central Station, but it does basically start in the same place. Where we differ more specifically is in what follows that. Both state that wife Carol goes to the bookstore. But whereas Tom Slemen tells us that Frank went up to a "record store in Ranelagh Street to look for a CD " the MU account has Frank bumping into an unnamed acquaintance and then chatting while his wife went over to Dillons.

Here things diverge slightly further. Slemen's account specifically refers to a timescale of 20 mins and Frank returning to Bold Street after walking up "the incline near the Lyceum". MU do not state a timescale or state that Frank left the vicinity of Bold Street at all. That account simply says that he finished having his conversation with this unnamed acquaintance and appears to still be on Bold Street at that point.

In the MU version Frank's response to the initial experience is that "he had the sudden and odd feeling that he did not recognize where he was". That it was "a very disorientating feeling". The general tone here seems to suggest almost a sense of disorientating bewilderment in Frank, which is not echoed in Slemen's piece. There he is portrayed as somewhat more rational. It's hard to tell of this is dramatic license or different understanding of events.

In Slemen's account the scene is described as "somehow [entering] an oasis of quietness". The background volume and ambiance is not really addressed in the MU piece. Nor the calmness Slemen's 'quiet' version implies

A note here: If you are one of those who has previously criticised Tom Slemen for embellishment? May I point out that Slemen's decription of "...this really unnerved him" seems positively restrained next to the MU's description of "... his growing confusing and creeping sense that something was definitely wrong". :)

Both pieces describe the people Frank sees in the vicinity as being dressed in clothing from the 1940s or 1950s. But only Slemen's version states that "He realised that he had somehow walked into the Bold Street of forty-odd years ago". That conclusion is not made in the MU piece.

The 1950s 'Caplan's' van beeping at Frank appears in both accounts. But in MU it is beeping for him to get out of the way. In the Slemen piece it is "beeping as it narrowly missed him" because Frank is walking down what he knows as a pedestrianised road, where a van was unlikely to be driving unless delivering goods. I do wonder if pedestrianisation is a thing in the US. Maybe that's why it doesn't get a mention here. I'm not in a place to really know.

In Slemen's version Frank crosses the road to find that the bookstore is no longer a bookstore, but a store "with the name 'Cripps' over its two entrances". In the MU version Frank looks for bookstore but is unable to locate it. The result is Frank becoming confused and he "began wandering around to see if he could get his bearings straight". Again the effect the experience is having on Frank underwrites him as not being 100% with it.

In relation to 'Cripps' Slemen's version says "He looked in the window of Cripps and saw no books on display, but womens' handbags and shoes." Whereas the MU version "... and in the windows were not books, but rather women's dresses and shoes of a similarly vintage design as the people walking along all around him ..."

Both accounts reference the girl Franks spots in more modern clothing. But only Slemen's version actually describes her appearance in any detail ("a girl of about twenty, dressed in the clothes of a mid-1990s girl; hipsters and a lime-coloured sleeveless top. The bag she carried had the name Miss Selfridges on it, which really reassured the policeman that he was still somehow partly in 1996.")

The MU piece describes the girl as "... standing at the entrance of the store looking just as confused as he was". At no point is she described as looking confused in the Slemen account, merely that upon seeing something more familiar Frank "smiled at the girl as she walked past him and entered Cripps".

In the MU account both Frank and the girl enter together, with "quizzical looks on their faces". Once they cross the threshold Frank sees that inside they are back in Waterstones, and nothing is amiss. The girl looks "... around in shock", and expresses confusion that "it wasn’t the clothing store she thought it would be". This is quite a different tone to the Slemen article.

But in Semen's account Frank follows the girl into Cripps. As he does the interior in front of him changes "in a flash to the interior of Dillons Bookshop". The girl is then on her way back out of the store and Frank grabs her by the arm. He asks "Did you see that then?" and "the girl calmly said, "Yeah. I thought it was a new shop that had opened. I was going in to look at the clothes, and it's a bookshop"." Note that there is a lack of shock in this account. It notes that she's calm, as she responds. Slemen then notes that "The girl just laughed, shook her head, and walked out again. Frank said the girl looked back and shook her head in disbelief. " A very different tone. No shock. No concern. Actual laughter at something odd just having happened.

The MU version does not mention that Frank relayed this incident to his wife Carol, or that she hadn't noticed anything strange. It does however follow up that "It would not be until later that Frank would figure out that “Cripps” had been a popular, historical traditional dressmaking shop that had opened in 1848 and closed down in the 1970s, and that the name on the van “Caplan’s,” was also a delivery business that had closed down long ago".

I would genuinely be interested to know what account Mysterious Universe's Brent Swancer was drawing from, as while both accounts broadly describe the same event there are enough differences in the two to raise further questions.

Both Swancer and Sleman are of course telling a story with a specific audience in mind. But are we simply looking at a difference in tone or have they been told slightly different stories.?

I wonder if the changes are to avoid plagiarism (being as they aren’t proper cited quotes) and add some more atmosphere.
 
I wonder if the changes are to avoid plagiarism (being as they aren’t proper cited quotes) and add some more atmosphere.


Entirely possible. The downside of that can be that it creates a Chinese Whispers effect. Where in enough details are changed in the more creative retelling that it begins to distort the original.
 
Talk about time-slips, what about that plane that took off from Brazil in 1946 that ended up missing only for it to land, 46 yrs later in 1993, at the Bogota, Columbia airport? ...

I have to do more look-ups on this story to check its veracity. :cooll:

Update: It's a hoax.

Yep ... This is an often-recycled tale that's been making the rounds in various paranormal, conspiracy, and UFO circles for decades.

It always seems to involve an airline and / or airports in South America. Some versions of the story claim the mystery airliner landed carrying nothing but skeletons, whereas other versions claim it was a non-fatal time slip of decades into the future.

The earliest documented source for this tale (that I know of ... ) is the infamous tabloid Weekly World News. They first published a version of the story in 1985, citing the flight as "Pan Am 914."

The same tabloid republished the story with different details and pictures twice more - in 1993 and 1999. In these later versions the airliner was "Charter Flight 914."

In turn, the Weekly World News accounts seem to have drawn their inspiration from a 1961 Twilight Zone episode - "The Odyssey of Flight 33."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flight-914-reappears-37-years/

A more recent version of this story (with the skeletons on board) appeared again this month. In this case the flight was called "Santiago Flight 513."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/santiago-flight-513-wormhole/
 
I think I remember seeing the Twilight Zone episode you mention and IIRC it had scenes in it where the passengers were looking out the windows at dinosaurs, or wars from decades previously, and other such Bill&Ted type stuff.
I also recall seeing a film where a pilot from WW1 landed at a modern airport. And also a story about someone flying through some strange clouds then seeing an RAF airfield with old planes painted pink (which was the colour of the planes of the predecessor to the RAF).
 
... And also a story about someone flying through some strange clouds then seeing an RAF airfield with old planes painted pink (which was the colour of the planes of the predecessor to the RAF).

That would be the Victor Goddard / Drem airfield story. It's mentioned earlier in this thread, and it has its own dedicated thread:

The Victor Goddard Time Slip Case (Drem Airfield; 1935)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...dard-time-slip-case-drem-airfield-1935.66181/
 
How would it land with only skeletons on board?
 
This is amazing if it’s not made up.
The Air Raid from the Future
Authors Ron Edwards, C. B. Colby and John Macklin report a Forward to the Future spacetime slip experienced by a newspaper reporter and his photographer. (See http://www.messagetoeagle.com/threeoldtimetravelcases.php#.U6BPby974aU.)
“In 1932, newspaper reporter J.Bernard Hutton and photographer Joachim Brandt were assigned to do a feature story on the Hamburg, Germany, shipyard. They drove to the huge complex, interviews several executives and workers, and completed the assignment by late afternoon.
As they were leaving, the two newsmen heard the unmistakable drone of aircraft engines and looked up to see the sky filled with warplanes. Then they heard the city’s antiaircraft batteries opening fire as bombs began exploding around them.
Moments later, the area was a raging inferno as fuel tanks were hit. Warehouses were collapsing from high explosives and dock cranes were twisted into pretzels.
Hutton and Brandt realized this was no drill.
They rushed to the car as antiaircraft gunners began scoring hits on the bomber formation overhead. At the gate, Hutton asked a security guard if there was anything they could do to help but was told leave the area immediately.
Hutton and Brandt were confused when they drove into Hamburg. The sky had turned dark during the attack, but now it was clear and the city was serene. The busy streets were not indented with craters and the buildings were intact. No one seemed concerned as they went about their daily business.
Hutton and Brandt stopped the car and looked back toward the shipyard. Now they received another shock because they saw no black ribbons of smoke rising into the sky and no damaged buildings. What was happening?
Back at the newspaper office, Brandt’s pictures were developed and the two men got another surprise. Brandt had continued shooting film throughout the air raid, but his photographs showed nothing unusual. The shipyard looked as it did upon their arrival that morning. There was no evidence that a rain of bombs from enemy planes had destroyed the area, as they had witnessed.
The editor studied the photographs and wondered why Hutton and Brandt insisted they had been involved in an air attack. He dismissed their story and decided that they had probably stopped at a tavern for a couple of drinks on the way back to the office.
Just before World War II began, Bernard Hutton moved to London. In 1943, he saw a newspaper story about a successful raid by a Royal Air Force squadron on the Hamburg shipyard. He felt a cold shiver along his spine as he studied the photos. The scene of destruction was exactly as it appeared during his visit with Brandt in the spring of 1932.
There was only one thing different – Hutton and Brandt had witnessed the event 11 years before it happened. “

https://spacetimeslip.wordpress.com/posts-spacetime-slip-accounts/page/16/

 
Avoidance of all the Xmas stuff monopolizing the media today gives me an opportunity to delve into this story.
suicide-santa.gif


I'm not sure how much faith one should invest in the J. Bernard Hutton / Hamburg story, because ...

(First, some background ... )

"J. Bernard Hutton" was the Anglicized name used by one Joseph Heisler (Czech; born 1911; died 1982) - a productive writer who published under these and other names, including Jan Čech and Kurt Hausner. He was allegedly German-educated and circa 21 years old at the time of the alleged Hamburg incident, at which time he was presumably already an active Communist Party member and journalist for a Communist newspaper in Prague. In this early phase he was strongly anti-Nazi.

Soon after the 1932 incident he returned to Prague, continued his active Communist-related work, and migrated to the Soviet Union in 1934 to attend the Lenin School. He apparently become disillusioned with Communism (eventually turning as virulently anti-Communist as he had been anti-Nazi) and returned to Prague circa 1938. His political affiliations were apparently the reason he had to flee his native Czechoslovakia for London. During and following the Second World War he authored a number of books on Soviet espionage, spycraft, and the notion of a global Communist threat.

Reviews of Hutton's books on Soviet espionage (some of which were in turn reviewed or commissioned by the FBI and CIA) range from positive to dismissive. The less flattering ones conclude the books are a mix of old news, indirectly-obtained facts, popular rumors and / or sheer imaginative fiction.

By the 1950s or early 1960s he'd begun writing on paranormal topics, including a book - Healing Hands - purportedly describing his own miraculous recovery from impending blindness through the intervention of a psychic / spiritual healer.

Moving on ...

The book cited above as the origin of the Hutton story is itself a 2004 collection merging material from 5 earlier books published in 1988, 1991, 1992, 1996, and 1997. All these publication dates are later than Heisler / Hutton's death in 1982. This 2004 book can be accessed at Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?id=v...BwYQ6AEwDXoECD0QAQ#v=onepage&q=hutton&f=false

The Hutton story begins on page 69.

I cannot locate any clues to the source(s) from which the 2004 compendium's authors drew Hutton's story. I'm not even sure the story was ever published by Heisler / Hutton himself. If it was ever published after Heisler / Hutton switched from politics to more paranormal topics, it would have been at least 30 years after whatever incident inspired it.

I'm unable to track down anything on Heisler / Hutton's colleague Joachim Brandt, who's variously described as a reporter or a photographer.

This story has been rehashed time and again in Fortean / paranormal circles, and some of the retellings are grossly distorted.

Most of the versions state Heisler / Hutton and Brandt were touring "The Hamburg shipyard" (singular). There were multiple shipyards in Hamburg proper as of 1932, operated by multiple companies. More specific accounts refer to the tour of "the Hamburg-Altona" shipyard (again, singular). As of 1932 Altona was an independent city not yet absorbed into Hamburg, which itself had multiple shipyards operated by multiple companies.

I mention the Altona angle because ... In the summer of 1932 there were major street clashes / riots between Nazi and Communist factions in Altona, culminating in a July 1932 melee resulting in 18 deaths, 15 eventual trials of Communists, and 5 beheadings (yes, I said beheadings).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altona_Bloody_Sunday

This incident would no doubt have been disturbing for a fervent young Communist such as Heisler / Hutton.

I ran across another possibly relevant tidbit. One of the smaller shipyard companies in Hamburg proper (and the only one to eventually resurrect itself after WW2) - Blohm & Voss - diversified into contract aircraft production in either 1932 or 1933 (most sources say 1933), specializing in seaplanes. Seaplanes coming to and / or leaving the B & V site supposedly used the river / harbor as their landing strip. I haven't found any clues regarding possible similar seaplane production activity by other nearby shipyard companies circa 1932.

I mention these two historical bits because in combination they provide a possible basis for a misremembered or creatively "spun" tale of large military-style aircraft traffic and dangerous violence somewhere in the shipyard precincts of Hamburg / Altona.
 
I know Tom Sleman of the 'Haunted Liverpool' books has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I don't think this particular case he documented has come up before.
Obviously, a 50 year-old story, told second hand, is lacking somewhat in acceptable provenance. Thought it was worth posting here though. It's an interesting case because, unlike most timeslip accounts that are alleged glimpses of times gone by, this one is suggestive of a hi-tech and militaristic future.
It does contain two common feature of timeslips, namely the "Oz Factor" (sudden unnatural silence) and unusual meteorological conditions - in this case an exceptionally heavy fog.

"In 2005, a woman visited me at Radio Merseyside to tell me how her late husband Jim, had been haunted by a very strange incident which had taken place at Charing Cross, Birkenhead in the 1950s when he was a policeman.
There had already been a terrible accident involving a police motorcyclist which had left Jim traumatised, and now, on this particular night, a dense fog had invaded Wirral and yet some idiotic motorists were still speeding towards the busy roundabout at Charing Cross where five roads converge.
A lorry had ‘conked out’ with the cold and Jim directed traffic in the thick fog around it, and visibility was that bad, he could hardly see anything beyond twelve feet.
A man on a bicycle ran into him at one point, and it was now the rush hour with dusk gathering.
All of a sudden, everything went as silent as the grave, and Jim could hardly see his gloved hand in front of his face because of the fog.
He could see no headlamps nor hear any engines – and then the policeman heard a low rumbling which shook the road and made Jim’s teeth chatter.
Whatever the thing was, it was coming his way – and then he saw its ghostly outline as it came from the direction of Grange Road West.
It resembled a military tank – but it was like no tank he had ever seen before.
It was enormous – as big as a house - and beams of red light shone from a dome on top of the weird vehicle and dazzled the shocked policeman.
He bolted to the left just in time, or he would have been crushed to pulp under the gargantuan caterpillar tracks of the unknown armoured vehicle, and then he saw something even more terrifying and inexplicable – a towering robotic figure about 20 feet in height – was marching towards him.
It was a grey silhouette, but as it approached, it slowed down and stooped – and a massive metallic hand made a grabbing motion towards Jim.
He ran off, and saw other similar giant robotic figures in the distance, but Jim then heard an explosion of traffic sound, and as the fog thinned, he found himself near the familiar Martins Bank building.
There was no sign of any gigantic tank or that mechanical Goliath.
Jim told no one about his frightening experience, and only told his wife about the incident many years later. I believe Jim entered some timeslip at Charing Cross and glimpsed a future war of some sort – hopefully a very long way off..."

(from https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/15643275.haunted-wirral-a-weird-wirral-timeslip/ )

charing_cross_timeslips.jpg.gallery.jpg
 
I know Tom Sleman of the 'Haunted Liverpool' books has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I don't think this particular case he documented has come up before.
Obviously, a 50 year-old story, told second hand, is lacking somewhat in acceptable provenance. Thought it was worth posting here though. It's an interesting case because, unlike most timeslip accounts that are alleged glimpses of times gone by, this one is suggestive of a hi-tech and militaristic future.
It does contain two common feature of timeslips, namely the "Oz Factor" (sudden unnatural silence) and unusual meteorological conditions - in this case an exceptionally heavy fog.

"In 2005, a woman visited me at Radio Merseyside to tell me how her late husband Jim, had been haunted by a very strange incident which had taken place at Charing Cross, Birkenhead in the 1950s when he was a policeman.
There had already been a terrible accident involving a police motorcyclist which had left Jim traumatised, and now, on this particular night, a dense fog had invaded Wirral and yet some idiotic motorists were still speeding towards the busy roundabout at Charing Cross where five roads converge.
A lorry had ‘conked out’ with the cold and Jim directed traffic in the thick fog around it, and visibility was that bad, he could hardly see anything beyond twelve feet.
A man on a bicycle ran into him at one point, and it was now the rush hour with dusk gathering.
All of a sudden, everything went as silent as the grave, and Jim could hardly see his gloved hand in front of his face because of the fog.
He could see no headlamps nor hear any engines – and then the policeman heard a low rumbling which shook the road and made Jim’s teeth chatter.
Whatever the thing was, it was coming his way – and then he saw its ghostly outline as it came from the direction of Grange Road West.
It resembled a military tank – but it was like no tank he had ever seen before.
It was enormous – as big as a house - and beams of red light shone from a dome on top of the weird vehicle and dazzled the shocked policeman.
He bolted to the left just in time, or he would have been crushed to pulp under the gargantuan caterpillar tracks of the unknown armoured vehicle, and then he saw something even more terrifying and inexplicable – a towering robotic figure about 20 feet in height – was marching towards him.
It was a grey silhouette, but as it approached, it slowed down and stooped – and a massive metallic hand made a grabbing motion towards Jim.
He ran off, and saw other similar giant robotic figures in the distance, but Jim then heard an explosion of traffic sound, and as the fog thinned, he found himself near the familiar Martins Bank building.
There was no sign of any gigantic tank or that mechanical Goliath.
Jim told no one about his frightening experience, and only told his wife about the incident many years later. I believe Jim entered some timeslip at Charing Cross and glimpsed a future war of some sort – hopefully a very long way off..."

(from https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/15643275.haunted-wirral-a-weird-wirral-timeslip/ )

View attachment 22115
I wonder if fog is a common factor?

And what a great story. Love it.
 
I wonder if fog is a common factor?

And what a great story. Love it.

Yes, I liked that account too and, despite it being little more than hearsay from the middle of the last century, thought it was a worthwhile addition to this fascinating thread.

Fog as a common factor got me Googling into strange meteorological conditions.
There is a rare form of mirage known as Fata Bromosa or "Fairy Fog", which can distort the size, shape and apparent proximity of objects.
Is it possible that the then young policeman, already traumatised by a serious accident befalling a colleague of his, witnessed a genuine military convoy pass by (possibly from nearby RMR Merseyside) and saw a 1950s heavy tank, such as the Centurian and some marching soldiers, rendered distorted and apparently monstrous by the fog?
That doesn't explain the sudden silence or the disappearance of the military hardware and return of the normal traffic, but I guess we have to consider possible rational explanations.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VU-E5nNUyzYC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=fata+bromosa,+or+fairy+fog&source=bl&ots=YFsdXerbqK&sig=ACfU3U2Tackm16t3cvbwKIP1OiMWpW7idA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMtruH3tfmAhXmQhUIHU3PD_wQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=fata bromosa, or fairy fog&f=false
 
Last edited:
Back
Top