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

Timeslip At Waterloo Station?

NumberNine said:
This is my response to Carl's document on Digital Spy;

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discu...thing-to-have-ever-happened-to-you-part-2/p47

Carl,

This paragraph from your document, along with your claim that I've subjected every word to close scrutiny when in fact this thread is the first time I've seen this paragraph, is an example of precisely the reason I had to just give up on the situation and stop contact;


"17
It seems that she and her friend were situated to the West of Regent Street, near the old Tower
Records store, not far from the area in Glasshouse Street where Doll Feet and P both experienced a
complete loss of traffic noise as they embraced. They also perceived themselves moving in slow
motion inside a kind of bubble. It so happens that Doll Feet told me that her account of the meeting
left out, on purpose, a key detail. She held this information back as a way of checking whether
anyone reporting anything similar was totally genuine. If they failed to mention it, she would have
doubts about their veracity"

We did not experience a loss of noise as we embraced, I clearly state that noise started again as we embraced. The implication in this paragraph is that I claimed we perceived ourselves moving in slow motion which has no basis in fact whatsoever. I did not say that I'd left out a key detail as a way of checking whether anyone reporting anything similar was totally genuine and that if they failed to mention it I'd have doubts about their veracity. This is a total fabrication on your part. What I actually said was that by persistently misquoting me from memory rather than checking what I actually said (or better still cutting and pasting to remove any possibility of misquoting me) you were totally obliterating oblique references that I'd carefully placed for the purpose of referring back to if I decided to elaborate at a later date so that nobody could claim I was adding details because they'd been right there the whole time. The example I gave you, to hammer the point home that misquoting me wasn't acceptable, was that I'd said TWO strange things had happened at the top of the stairs but only actually detailed one - the silence. Your response was to say you didn't think you could say that because it would frustrate the reader, completely missing my point which was NOT let's be enigmatic and frustrate the reader but STOP MISQUOTING ME! At no point did I even hint at what the second thing was and certainly never claimed it was to test anyone's veracity. This is yet another example of you misunderstanding, misremembering and filling in the blanks with wild speculation.


I agreed to a "summary" of my posts which I naively imagined would be you actually checking what I'd said rather than relying on memory, or cutting and pasting with a few comments in between from you. I didn't agree to a massive time consuming editing job on persistent misquotes and misunderstandings or a battle of wills with the facts v what you'd imagined I'd said, embroidered on and allowed to solidify to the extent you were virtually arguing with me! Nor did I agree to an "investigation" which you tried to changed it into part way through despite me telling you early on that nobody was in a position to perform an investigation because only I knew all the details and there was a lot omitted that would put things into a completely different light.

"I'm now starting to think that maybe they (the entities) were trying to stop them meeting..."

This again! As you say, hundreds of messages, the vast majority of them a battle to remove your insistence that the couple were mystical beings who'd tried to protect me from P and prevent me from meeting him, even insisting weeks and countless messages down the line "Well in my mind that couple still have some importance." As I pointed out, the fact that something, presumably whatever set the situation up, showed and told me P was there made absolute nonsense of any speculation that they were mystical beings who'd been sent to protect me from him. Hours and hours stretching into weeks and months absolutely wasted trying to get you to accept that the guy was more than likely just some sleazy would-be punter who had 2 options "How much?" which if he'd badly misread the situation, and he had, might earn him a slap in the face, or the safer option "You two are so beautiful." Nothing slick, film-like or contrived there! Add to that the fact that rather than approach P&I as the girl did he held back at the top of the stairs looking seriously worried when he saw my 6ft 4" boyfriend who might have objected to him taking me for coffee. He certainly wouldn't have been the only guy P punched for mistaking me for a prostitute in that area. All that time squandered on the most trivial aspect of the whole situation because of your absolute refusal to revise your opinion - time that could have been spent discussing the finer points of the paranormal aspects I'd detailed. As I said in my last message to you, I can only assume your total refusal to accept that there was nothing film-like, contrived or slick about a bog standard prostitute pick up line is because it's never been your experience to be a sexually attractive young girl in the vicinity of Soho.

"I've sent her a lot of messages on DS without reply, so she obviously doesn't want to talk about them now. Maybe something else has happened to her to warn her off the topic. I certainly do respect her decision, I'm just relieved that she's still around!"

You most certainly do NOT respect my decision. I tried to make it clear to you in my final message that your evident absence of any trace of empathy or sensitivity, forcing me to spend hours a day for weeks on end focusing on and reliving such a stressful situation because it didn't fit in with what you'd imagined, was intolerable and inappropriate. You confirmed that this was the case by coming back at me with (quoting from memory) "It never even occurred to me there was an emotional aspect to this" and then totally disregarded my point that enough was enough by stating that I must think, not you think, I must think that my boyfriend was a master magician! How on earth you came to that conclusion given that I made it clear in this thread that when he realized he was involved in something he didn't understand he had a screaming, thrashing nervous breakdown and had to go to live with his parents I don't know! No way was I going to spend more exasperating weeks batting that one backwards and forwards.

By your own admission I'm the 3rd person (that I know of) who's "abruptly" stopped communication with you and I can only assume that they also recognised that you weren't the right person to "summarise" their experiences with the necessary degree of accuracy. The appropriate response to that is to have the good grace to let it go. By ploughing on regardless and publicly claiming you have the approved version you've effectively jeopardised your own credibility and put me in the horrible position of having no choice but to publicly address this and distance myself from you so that mine isn't tainted by association.
Click to expand...
Well, that's quite a serious attack. The only way I could answer this is to say that, yes, we went over these points in obsessive detail and in every case I ended up by stating very clearly what you wanted to put over regarding such and such a point, and that my own speculations were generally negated. After me worrying for the past year that you were seriously ill and asking again and again what you wanted me to do -- to publish the document, to leave it aside, to give up altogether -- any of which I would have willingly done -- you made absolutely no effort to reply. I warned you that I was, after over a year, finally going to present the article on this site, and gave you another couple of weeks to say yes or no, and again no response. Had you said, "no, I don't want this published, it's not what I wanted it to be," then I would have respected that.

The only way I could counter what you're saying is by pdf-ing all of the 200+ messages we exchanged and leaving it to everyone else on this forum to decide for themselves. Is that what you want?

I will say that all the emotion, quite understandably, relates to the role and motivations of your boy friend. You comment that I was wrong in thinking that you thought your boy friend was some kind of satanic magician. Well, this was in response to your comment which I will quote here:

The hundreds of messages we've had to exchange over the last weeks, trying to correct misperceptions and avoid directing people to leap to others, has meant that I've spent literally hours a day dwelling on a horrific period in my life; being helpless victim of a demonic force that I'm powerless against and that has since gone on to destroy my life, repeatedly thinking about the only man I've ever loved hating me to such an extent that violence and exploitation wasn't enough and he tried to bargain with my immortal soul....

That last sentence rather shook me when I read it. Only a few weeks before you had mentioned seeing P's brother on Facebook and wondering whether he could help you find out P's memories of the incident.

I can only reiterate my position which I thought I had made clear from day one. I wanted to produce a definitive account of one of the most extraordinary incidents ever reported. Yes, it was hard work. In the process, I found that you had changed your views about the roles of the helpful couple -- you had originally suspected that they were involved to some degree, then that the man was just a lecher who happened to join in, and then you wanted to rule them both out of the equation. I was, and still am, unwilling to assume anything so definite. In my view someone who suggests that you go to a cafe that doesn't exist, and led you there in a way that suggests she knew it well, must be a potential suspect, as it were. I still suspect the lady's role in this. I also stated very clearly that as a researcher my role is to be analytical and to cover all possibilities -- stating exactly what happened to you, as you recall it, and then giving your view on how to interpret it, and then suggesting alternative possibilities. I didn't see my job as just presenting your accounts and not discussing them and trying to make some sense out of them. I maybe should have spelled this out at the start, but I assumed that you knew that this is what researchers try to do.

I suggest that your best option is to do what I know you are quite capable of doing -- writing your own account of your experiences, giving your own opinions on how to interpret them, and presenting it here or on DS. But you will still need to try to explain the aims of whoever is behind all the strange happenings in your life, and what their aim is. How would creating a fake cafe help you to meet P? I think your sudden vision of P in the street above was your own intuition at work -- but that is just my opinion. And neither of us have any real idea what the answers are.

I am very sad that you have taken such a hostile approach. If you really didn't want my report released, all you had to do was say so.
 
Carl Grove said:
Well, that's quite a serious attack. The only way I could answer this is to say that, yes, we went over these points in obsessive detail and in every case I ended up by stating very clearly what you wanted to put over regarding such and such a point, and that my own speculations were generally negated. After me worrying for the past year that you were seriously ill and asking again and again what you wanted me to do -- to publish the document, to leave it aside, to give up altogether -- any of which I would have willingly done -- you made absolutely no effort to reply. I warned you that I was, after over a year, finally going to present the article on this site, and gave you another couple of weeks to say yes or no, and again no response. Had you said, "no, I don't want this published, it's not what I wanted it to be," then I would have respected that.

The only way I could counter what you're saying is by pdf-ing all of the 200+ messages we exchanged and leaving it to everyone else on this forum to decide for themselves. Is that what you want?

I will say that all the emotion, quite understandably, relates to the role and motivations of your boy friend. You comment that I was wrong in thinking that you thought your boy friend was some kind of satanic magician. Well, this was in response to your comment which I will quote here:

The hundreds of messages we've had to exchange over the last weeks, trying to correct misperceptions and avoid directing people to leap to others, has meant that I've spent literally hours a day dwelling on a horrific period in my life; being helpless victim of a demonic force that I'm powerless against and that has since gone on to destroy my life, repeatedly thinking about the only man I've ever loved hating me to such an extent that violence and exploitation wasn't enough and he tried to bargain with my immortal soul....

That last sentence rather shook me when I read it. Only a few weeks before you had mentioned seeing P's brother on Facebook and wondering whether he could help you find out P's memories of the incident.

I can only reiterate my position which I thought I had made clear from day one. I wanted to produce a definitive account of one of the most extraordinary incidents ever reported. Yes, it was hard work. In the process, I found that you had changed your views about the roles of the helpful couple -- you had originally suspected that they were involved to some degree, then that the man was just a lecher who happened to join in, and then you wanted to rule them both out of the equation. I was, and still am, unwilling to assume anything so definite. In my view someone who suggests that you go to a cafe that doesn't exist, and led you there in a way that suggests she knew it well, must be a potential suspect, as it were. I still suspect the lady's role in this. I also stated very clearly that as a researcher my role is to be analytical and to cover all possibilities -- stating exactly what happened to you, as you recall it, and then giving your view on how to interpret it, and then suggesting alternative possibilities. I didn't see my job as just presenting your accounts and not discussing them and trying to make some sense out of them. I maybe should have spelled this out at the start, but I assumed that you knew that this is what researchers try to do.

I suggest that your best option is to do what I know you are quite capable of doing -- writing your own account of your experiences, giving your own opinions on how to interpret them, and presenting it here or on DS. But you will still need to try to explain the aims of whoever is behind all the strange happenings in your life, and what their aim is. How would creating a fake cafe help you to meet P? I think your sudden vision of P in the street above was your own intuition at work -- but that is just my opinion. And neither of us have any real idea what the answers are.

I am very sad that you have taken such a hostile approach. If you really didn't want my report released, all you had to do was say so.
Click to expand...

I've no idea what is happening but Carl you need to stop communicating with no 9 and just drop the whole thing.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
I've no idea what is happening but Carl you need to stop communicating with no 9 and just drop the whole thing.
Click to expand...
You may well be right. If there is another reply from no 9 I shall make a final decision then. Pity.
 
Carl Grove said:
You may well be right. If there is another reply from no 9 I shall make a final decision then. Pity.
Click to expand...

You are close to some sort of major cyber-bullying accusation and I totally get that was never your intent. If she replies you need to say sorry and drop it.
 
Good point, although I'm still not sure what I've done wrong!
 
I saw the original post on DS years ago and to me it was the most compelling story on there. Although I’ll be honest and say I’m not sure I believed it. Or rather, I think the person recalling it may have believed it genuinely but I struggled to, in some ways.

From a writing POV I think the only way to do this would have been to use DF’s words and only her words. Not to put any kind of spin anywhere or offer any interpretation. But leave it open to the reader to join any dots or take it at face value.

It was fascinating to finally see some of the other material around this, that I think DF hinted at all those years ago. And to see the documented evidence that she was indeed in the right place at the right time.

But it is such a good story it would stand with zero narration and zero interpretation. DF’s own words, unedited and with nothing else but the images she supplied, would be more than enough.

Having read the more full account I am actually more inclined to believe it now then I was when I read it on DS. I think in the context of the DS thread, DF wasn’t helped by some of the contributors with less credibility jumping on her bandwagon. That was my view at the time.

Carl I get what you’re doing, collating the time slip stuff. You have to handle interviewees with sensitivity to get the best out of them and that is sometimes a separate skill to researching and writing. The fact DF found this difficult also adds weight and credibility to her story. But maybe let contributors tell it utterly in their own words in future and let them unfold the story at their pace?
 
I'm glad to hear that reading the article made you take the case more seriously. I can assure you that I do treat all of the witnesses that I make contact with extremely sensitively, and had absolutely no problems in my dealings with DF for several years before this. We had long discussions about the article and the MS was in its closing stages, after we had resolved the major issue of the role of the two helpful people by stating her views rather than mine, when she suddenly sent a message that was totally different in tone from anything she had sent previously. I answered as calmly and sensibly as I could, finished the final draft and then heard nothing more from her for over a year. In view of the many horrible things that had happened to her over the years, I feared that something even worse had transpired and it was a constant source of worry for me. So her sudden attack on me was wholly unexpected and very disturbing.

In fact DF wanted someone else to author the article as she didn't want to be seen to be promoting her experiences in an egoistical kind of way, and when I put forward my own ideas about various aspects of the case I made sure to state that they were my personal views and not hers.

The fact that we have had this sudden catastrophic conflict in no way lessens my regard for DF and my admiration for the way she has managed to survive so many bizarre shocks and setbacks, nor does it reduce her credibility in my eyes. The fact that other odd things have happened in the Piccadilly area adds weight to the case, I believe.
 
Having slept on it, there are elements to this verison that make me find it more credible and other elements that are more troubling, which I wouldn't want to go into, here. Probably always safest to run the final draft past contributor before you publish, as much to protect yourself as them..? And don't publish until they've signed it off although from a selfish point of view, am glad you did because I got to see some of the documentation and hear the rest of the story, for context. Not saying you were insensitive as such just that maybe different interviewees may need different approaches and I get how hard it is when you're feeling your way and trying to corroborate things and explore possibilities. But I think this particular story is strong enough to let stand with no commentary or interpretation. That could happen maybe on a thread here. Just let the words stand, even unedited. It is that strong a story. And you don't risk accidentally introducing an inaccuracy in your attempt to get accuracy, if that makes sense?

So much to do with these time slip stories. But I'd stay out of the narrative and just have the interviewee's voice as that gives future potential interviewees more confidence to trust you - and who knows but someone might come along with a real banger of a story, you'll want to document.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
Having slept on it, there are elements to this verison that make me find it more credible and other elements that are more troubling, which I wouldn't want to go into, here. Probably always safest to run the final draft past contributor before you publish, as much to protect yourself as them..? And don't publish until they've signed it off although from a selfish point of view, am glad you did because I got to see some of the documentation and hear the rest of the story, for context. Not saying you were insensitive as such just that maybe different interviewees may need different approaches and I get how hard it is when you're feeling your way and trying to corroborate things and explore possibilities. But I think this particular story is strong enough to let stand with no commentary or interpretation. That could happen maybe on a thread here. Just let the words stand, even unedited. It is that strong a story. And you don't risk accidentally introducing an inaccuracy in your attempt to get accuracy, if that makes sense?

So much to do with these time slip stories. But I'd stay out of the narrative and just have the interviewee's voice as that gives future potential interviewees more confidence to trust you - and who knows but someone might come along with a real banger of a story, you'll want to document.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that, the problem being in this case that I was confident (always a mistake?) that DF and I were very much on the same wavelength, based on messaging going back to her original posts, and up until that moment I had absolutely no reason to guess that all that would change in an instant, as it were. Also the main problem with establishing a coherent narrative was that she had posted a bit here and a bit there, not in chronological order, sometimes leaving out relevant info, which made working out the precise sequence of events difficult. Then DF would (quite naturally) sometimes recall some odd detail that she hadn't considered mentioning before but that had an important effect on the progression of the story. (For example, I had always assumed that she was able to look out for P from her position in the hotel lobby, but late in the day she said that actually she couldn't see the street at all.) For this reason alone, just stringing together all these snippets in sequence would have made it a very disjointed narrative. And I did of course give DF a link to that final version, and she still failed to reply. By then I was certain that Heaven knows what had happened to her and that she was unable to reply or not around any more...
 
Carl Grove said:
Sorry, think you may have been talking about the Mothercare case. A young lady discovered a newly opened Mothercare shop with items at very low prices. She selected several items but the staff refused to accept her credit card. Later her mum told her that Mothercare had closed years before and there was now a bank on the site.
Click to expand...
I have been catching up with this thread today, fascinating stuff and really appreciate your research and extensive knowledge of all these cases @Carl Grove ! Do you plan to publish something based on your catalogue at some point?

One inconsistency in the Mothercare story which I don't see anyone picking up on - the young lady was 17 years old, but you have to be 18 years old to have a credit card. It could simply be Tom Slemen substituting 'credit card' for 'debit card' I suppose.
 
taras said:
I have been catching up with this thread today, fascinating stuff and really appreciate your research and extensive knowledge of all these cases @Carl Grove ! Do you plan to publish something based on your catalogue at some point?

One inconsistency in the Mothercare story which I don't see anyone picking up on - the young lady was 17 years old, but you have to be 18 years old to have a credit card. It could simply be Tom Slemen substituting 'credit card' for 'debit card' I suppose.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that I was overwhelmed by the numbers of time slip cases, new ones emerging almost every day, and by domestic problems. Managed to get basic details on record cards, 316 completed so far, but a long way to go!
Good point about the Mothercare case. I think a lot of people tend to use the term "credit card" as a blanket name for various types of cards, and Slemen can be a bit casual at times.
I'll message you and give you more info, if you're seriously interested in time slips.
 
Tribble said:
A bit of history I learned recently regarding use of the London Underground as shelters in WW2. It wasn't planned. Working class Londoners had to break into the stations to begin with because there weren't adequate "official" shelters.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244792307280297985
Click to expand...

It was intended to build deep level shelters in the late thirties but in the end they couldn't fund them. The Secret History of the Blitz covers this well.
 
Carl Grove said:
I'm glad to hear that reading the article made you take the case more seriously. I can assure you that I do treat all of the witnesses that I make contact with extremely sensitively, and had absolutely no problems in my dealings with DF for several years before this. We had long discussions about the article and the MS was in its closing stages, after we had resolved the major issue of the role of the two helpful people by stating her views rather than mine, when she suddenly sent a message that was totally different in tone from anything she had sent previously. I answered as calmly and sensibly as I could, finished the final draft and then heard nothing more from her for over a year. In view of the many horrible things that had happened to her over the years, I feared that something even worse had transpired and it was a constant source of worry for me. So her sudden attack on me was wholly unexpected and very disturbing.

In fact DF wanted someone else to author the article as she didn't want to be seen to be promoting her experiences in an egoistical kind of way, and when I put forward my own ideas about various aspects of the case I made sure to state that they were my personal views and not hers.

The fact that we have had this sudden catastrophic conflict in no way lessens my regard for DF and my admiration for the way she has managed to survive so many bizarre shocks and setbacks, nor does it reduce her credibility in my eyes. The fact that other odd things have happened in the Piccadilly area adds weight to the case, I believe.
Click to expand...

I have a friend with psychosis, when they don't take their meds they tend to over react and come out with the most unbelievable tales.
When they do take their meds they often don't remember what they've said and deny everything.
 
Been to that hotel several times - not stayed there, but been back to rooms of guests, and popped in to use the loo etc

The foyer was open to the public and had shops in it - neither a public nor private space.

For such a grand name and frontage, and such a prestigious location, the rooms I saw had sinks but no bathrooms.

They tended to be used by large touring groups, school trips, or people staying a couple of nights.
Different from a resort hotel where families stay for one or two weeks.

And the location was on the cusp of three areas -

Just set back from the tourist meeting place of Piccadilly Circus.
Just outside the more upscale Piccadilly/Mayfair scene.
And just at the "gateway " to nightlife/red light/trendy Soho.

It was a strange vibe ... liminal.
 
Victory said:
...It was a strange vibe ... liminal.
Click to expand...

I find this a lot with a certain type of London hotel: a huge disjunct between name, location, facade - and the state of the guest rooms. These days I stick to the known qualities of a Travelodge.

And you are right, there is a very thin feel to such places. The huge turnover of residents, the peripatetic nature of staffing and services, the outdated and uncared for decor and shoddy state of repair has a cumulative effect which makes the places feel as if they somehow exist independently, and of their own accord, without any fixed human intervention - like slowly disappearing architectural phantoms.
 
It is interesting that such places -- pubs and hotels especially -- seem to generate a lot of hauntings. Large numbers of transient people seem to be the common factor. Arguably ancient mansions and palaces fall into the same category, albeit over a longer time period.
 
dream_decoder said:
I have a friend with psychosis, when they don't take their meds they tend to over react and come out with the most unbelievable tales.
When they do take their meds they often don't remember what they've said and deny everything.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's relevant to this particular circumstance, I suspect that long term stress (which I have a lot of personal experience of myself) is a more relevant factor.
 
Spookdaddy said:
I find this a lot with a certain type of London hotel: a huge disjunct between name, location, facade - and the state of the guest rooms. These days I stick to the known qualities of a Travelodge.

And you are right, there is a very thin feel to such places. The huge turnover of residents, the peripatetic nature of staffing and services, the outdated and uncared for decor and shoddy state of repair has a cumulative effect which makes the places feel as if they somehow exist independently, and of their own accord, without any fixed human intervention - like slowly disappearing architectural phantoms.
Click to expand...

Vey hauntological they are there and (barely), functional but already are fading into some sort of obsolescence - dreams of some sort of 80's heyday.
 
Carl Grove said:
I'm afraid that I was overwhelmed by the numbers of time slip cases, new ones emerging almost every day, and by domestic problems. Managed to get basic details on record cards, 316 completed so far, but a long way to go!
Good point about the Mothercare case. I think a lot of people tend to use the term "credit card" as a blanket name for various types of cards, and Slemen can be a bit casual at times.
I'll message you and give you more info, if you're seriously interested in time slips.
Click to expand...
Hey Carl,
Have you plotted all of the locations on a map? I'd be interested to find out if there is any common natural landmarks/environment around them that might play a part in a theory of what causes them?
 
HypnosMetis said:
Hey Carl,
Have you plotted all of the locations on a map? I'd be interested to find out if there is any common natural landmarks/environment around them that might play a part in a theory of what causes them?
Click to expand...
I plotted a few of the more important Liverpool cases and they definitely cluster around Bold Street, but there are still quite a lot outside the central part of town. The most interesting feature, pointed out to me by a geology mapping expert, is that about 1km below Bold Street there is a very complex faulting system. This tends to confirm my general hypothesis that complex geology modulates the earth's natural energy and this somehow interacts with the witnesses, who are generally sensitives, in my experience.
 
NunberNine's case is certainly a strange one. It does seem, after looking at all her related experiences, that there is something other than just a timeslip at work. It is apparent that some intelligence was behind her experiences .Something or someone that can operate outside of linear time. Who or what this intelligence is and their reasons for interfering in Number Nine's life, can only be speculated on. Here is another case I found , which has some similar elements to the case. It's another interesting one.




http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Time slip.html
 
Paul_Exeter said:
It is intriguing but not without a couple of red flags - to my mind - with the dialogue being one in particular (I say that as someone who has learnt about scriptwriting).
Click to expand...
It is very well written indeed. The witness may have been a naturally good writer who described a real experience -- or who just told a good story. It would be unusual in a film or TV script to find such attention to precise details though, I think.
 
The witness appears to be an academic/researcher, who has tried to be as thorough and presice as possible in presenting all the details of his experience in order to help anyone who is interested in researching this sort of thing.
His experience led him to embark on a research project , primarily focusing on the missing 411 phenomena ( the encounter with the man in black occurred on a road running parallel to an area where several people have gone missing in odd circumstances) that took him to Scotland,where he experienced a second missing time episode , on this occasion he was in the company of a research associate. He has written about this here:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/7ehb3v
 
I think the first story I posted a link to , about the two sisters who got lost in a maze of ploughed fields , while on their way to a dance, has amazing parallels to No 9/Doll feet's story, Which is a highly unusual one.

Both witnesses experienced unusual time anomalies(although No9/Doll feet's occurred during her terrifying car journey, which is a separate event from the day she found herself at the vanishing cafe, yet seems related ,somehow)

Both witnesses ended up in locations it should not have been possible for them to be in.No9/Doll feet at a location more than 300 miles away , in an impossibly short space of time, and the sisters over a mile away from where they started out , on the other side of a stream they insist they never crossed and missing 4 hours of time.

Both witnesses found themselves in a building that didn't exist in the real world. No9/Doll feet at a cafe that she later found had never existed at that location , at any point in the past. The sisters at a cottage that research has proven never existed on that stretch of road , at any point in the past.

Both witnesses remember an odd object that they found hard to describe, featuring in their experiences. No9/Doll feet remembered a strange, water heater type of contraption on the counter of the cafe. The sisters described a mysterious white stone pillar that emitted strange noises.

Both witnesses had encounters with strangers who seemingly offered to help them. No9/Doll feet was approached by a concerned woman who took her to the cafe and a man who appeared on the scene offering to buy her coffee. The sisters were helped by the cottage owner who gave them directions to a nearby villiage.

It would appear that either the cafe and cottage did exist but at a different location from where the experiences thought they were and that somehow ,they were briefly transported to these locations and then back to their original places , or that the cafe and cottage were actually located in some other dimension . Or that these buildings never actually existed , but somehow, the minds of the witnesses were manipulated to make them think they were there , when they really were not. Its all very odd.
 
Another odd parallel I noticed , this time between the guy who encountered the man in black and the two sisters, is the m.i.b guy describes how it started to rain as he was walking home. He could see the trees bending in the wind and yet the rain was coming down straight. When he got home , he noticed that although his clothes were wet, his shoes, which were denim , were bone dry.

The two sisters remarked that although they had been climbing over hedge after hedge, in their experience and had scrambled through waist high brambles , only their stockings were torn and their dresses unmarked.

It's almost as though these people were in two seperate locations at the same time
 
Interesting parallels between the two cases, which I must admit I never noticed before. The big difference is that Doll Feet had a lifetime full of bizarre and threatening experiences, of which the cafe incident was but one, whereas as far as we know the sisters never had any other odd happenings prior to their nightmare evening. In fact it is fairly normal for some people who are more sensitive to have multiple experiences rather than just one!
 
My point in providing the links to these stories was that I hoped by comparing the experiences of these people and perhaps other cases that some on here may know of and noting the parallels, between cases, some insight into who or what is behind the phenomena and the reason these people were interfered with ,may be realized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top