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

AlbertM2018

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
15
Points
3
#1
No diehard skeptic on Earth could ever explain how three young cadets of the Royal Navy, who were quickly transiting through the village of Kersey (Suffolk) in October 1957, could see near the stream a butcher’s shop that had been closed-down more than 50 years before, and whose presence in the past was still remembered in 1957 by just a few persons of that little village, and nowhere indicated by any document. That never explained vision, along with the one of tall forest trees which were fully occupying the right-hand side of the lane and were totally obscuring the sight to the near church, is convincingly proving that what the three young boys saw was definitely not Kersey as it was in 1957, it was probably the village as it was between 17th and early 18th century.

Here is the full article (https://www.academia.edu/36091503/ ) showing the main hypotheses in favor and against the “paranormal” explanation.

Everything you always wanted to know about the case of Kersey village, but were afraid to ask :)

Hope you enjoy

Best

Alberto Miatello
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,228
Likes
1,173
Points
169
#2
You repeatedly state that all three cadets saw this timeslip, while only two actually reported it. The third (Baker) reported nothing out of the ordinary. Why do you perpetuate this error?
 

AlbertM2018

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
15
Points
3
#3
Sorry, you're in error.

You actually did read NOTHING of my paper. I extensively mentioned and commented Baker's version, whose opinion is by no means ruling out the possibility of a time-slip (or a paranormal case) , as rightly said MacKenzie too. Baker did not pay too much attention to that brief visit to that village in October 1957, simply because for him (a Cockney Londoner) Kersey was a countryside village as many others, he saw that it was deserted, and for him that was all, he was careless during that brief visit, as could be careless and absentminded a 15 year old young boy that probably was thinking about his sport team, or about a young girl . And anyway you ignore that Baker confirmed that he looked too inside a few houses through the glass-panes, and he saw that in those houses THERE WAS NO FURNITURE AT ALL, as Laing and Crowley reported.

Moreover - as you did read NOTHING of what I wrote - I said too that AT THAT TIME (OCTOBER 1957) it was difficult for the 3 boys to suspect a "paranormal case" as a result of that brief visit.
THE PARANORMAL SIDE OF THIS CASE CAME OUT JUST AFTER 1990, THANKS TO THE INVESTIGATION BY ANDREW MACKENZIE.
The 3 boys did not see neither "phantoms", nor the monster of Loch Ness, at that time they simply reported that Kersey village was totally deserted.
That could be "strange" , but it could be normal after all. (Crowley thought the persons were at Church)

So the intelligent question should be: how could Kersey village be totally deserted between 11-12 a.m. of a Sunday morning in October 1957?
Clearly Kersey could NOT be totally deserted at that time!

Moreover, YOU'RE TOTALLY MISSING 3 FUNDAMENTAL POINTS:

1) Baker by no means denied that they saw a BUTCHER'S SHOP. How could they see in 1957 a butcher's shop that was closed-down more than 50 years before?

2) Baker did not deny that beyond the stream/water-splash the right-hand side of the lane (leading to St. Mary's Church) was FULLY OCCUPIED BY TALL FOREST TREES totally preventing the sight of the tower of the Church. But in 1957 there was NO FOREST TREE beyond the water splash, the sight was totally free, and you could immediately spot the tower of the Church. How can you explain this?
If you look at the OLD PHOTOS of Kersey as it was in 1930s, in 1890s (that I enclosed to my article) , you immediately see that even in 1890 you could see the tower of the Church from the area of brook/water-splash.

3) Baker did not deny at all what Laing + Crowley reported = there were just a few small and old houses, well-distanced, having small glass windows, but those were NOT the features of Kersey's houses in 1957! In 1957 Kersey's houses along the Street were very close. The landscape described by Laing + Crowley (that Baker indirectly confirmed) was that of Kersey as it was at least 3 CENTURIES BEFORE!

So, it seems you totally missed the point of this case = THE POINT IS THAT IN 1957 THE PARANORMAL SIDE OF THAT VISIT WAS NOT EVIDENT. IT BECAME EVIDENT AFTER 1990, AFTER THE SURVEY BY MACKENZIE AND LAING, WHEN THEY CAME BACK TO KERSEY, AND THEY GOT CONFIRMATION THAT THE LANDSCAPE LAING + CROWLEY (+ BAKER) SAW WAS NOT THAT OF KERSEY IN 1957.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,534
Likes
4,001
Points
229
#4
Albert,

..Baker did not pay too much attention to that brief visit to that village in October 1957,..

It also appears that the three did not discuss what they saw at the time. This seems rather odd that the two who are purported to have had this experience did not talk about it to Baker.

Something along the lines of 'What!, you didn't notice anything ?'.

If they were together and Baker did look through some windows and observe the lack of furniture etc, it seems strange that it had no effect upon him.

INT21
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,228
Likes
1,173
Points
169
#5
I have heard of this case before; the curious fact that Baker noticed nothing is very important. You can't say that he 'indirectly confirmed' the statements of the other two. In fact he confirmed nothing. Twisting his lack of evidence into an 'indirect confirmation' is an error. Yet you persistently say 'the three youths noticed' this and 'the three youths saw' that. Please edit it so that the true facts are presented.
 
Last edited:

AlbertM2018

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
15
Points
3
#6
@INT21 + eburacum

You're just wasting yr. AND MY time with irrelevant remarks...

Another important point making totally irrelevant remarks by those who are pointing out the “forgetfulness” of Baker, with respect to that brief visit (no more than 20-30 minutes!) to Kersey village, once he was asked to remember that event, AFTER MORE THAN 30 YEARS, is that it is a very common fact of experience that many people tend to forget things that were not so important for them, JUST AFTER A FEW WEEKS!
Many persons are unable to remember a specific day, and even to provide an ALIBI for that day, when asked by police after a few weeks, or months.
Several years ago we organized a dinner and reunion with “old” (we were all 34 y.o.) school mates of high-school, 15 years after our first meeting.
Some of us mentioned events that some of us were remembering quite well, others did not at all. I was amazed that one of us did not remember at all a professor, although he saw her for 9 months (not for 20-30 minutes!), during the 3rd year.
So, how can someone be surprised that Baker did not keep a good memory of a fleeting visit, MORE THAN 30 YEARS BEFORE, to a countryside village that – contrary to Laing and Crowley – was not so important for him, as a Londoner citizen who was not interested in countryside villages?

But let me tell you another thing…
Here, in the “Kersey village case”, we have 2 WITNESSES who recalled quite well what they saw, and a third person who did not belie their statements.

2 witnesses remembering things that nobody could see (butcher’s shop, forest trees beside stream, etc.) in October 1957 in Kersey village, seem enough to corroborate the paranormal nature of that event.
I personally tend to be suspicious of versions as released by just one person (it could be a false memory, a hallucination, etc.) but here we have 2 WITNESSES , whose versions are totally similar.
So, this petty “excuse” regarding the “forgetfulness” of Baker makes no sense.
The point is that when someone is BIASED, you may find 2,000 witnesses, he/she will find petty excuses to stubbornly deny!
Let me tell you, for instance, about one of the most famous event of history, the JFK ASSASSINATION.

It was not a “paranormal” event, and it was testified by DOZENS of witnesses, and it was also recorded by photos and movies. In my paper

https://www.academia.edu/32346233/Six_Compelling_and_Irrefutable_Reasons_Proving_that_President_Kennedy_was_Killed_by_a_Well-Organized_

I showed that 47 witnesses heard or saw shots whose origin was the Grassy Knoll area. Here are their names:
1.Victoria Adams 2.Danny Garcia Arce 3.Virgie Baker (née Rackley) 4.Jane Berry 5.Charles Brehm 6.Ochus Campbell 7.Faye Chism 8.John Chism 9.Harold Elkins 10.Ronald Fischer 11.Buell Wesley Frazier 12.Dorothy Garner 13.Jean Hill 14.S. M. Holland 15.Ed Johnson 16.Dolores Kounas 17.Paul Landis 18.Billy Lovelady 19.Austin Miller 20.A.J. Millican 21.Luke Mooney 22.Thomas Murphy 23.Jean Newman 24.William Newman 25.Kenneth O’Donnell 26. David Powers 27.Roberta Parker 28.Frank Reilly 29.Arnold Rowland 30.Edgar Smith 31.Joe Marshall Smith 32.Forrest Sorrels 33.James Tague 34.Roy Truly 35.Harry Weatherford 36.Seymour Weitzman 37.Otis Williams 38.Mary Woodward 39.Abraham Zapruder 40. Emmett Hudson 41.E.V. Brown 42. James Crawford 43. Avery Davis 44. Joe Molina 45. Jesse Price 46. Steven Wilson 47. Orville Nix
Now, statistical odds that 47 witnesses could ALL mistake the origin of shots between 2 distant locations (Texas School Book Depository was almost 100 mt. distant from Grassy Knoll area) is just 1 in 2^47 = 1 in 140 trillion! = INFINITESIMAL

Every day any of us is driving his/her car, although odds to die in a car accident in a lifetime are 1 in 90-100, a number that is enormously LARGER than 1 in 140 trillion.
But – quite incoherently – many persons believe that chances to die in a car accident are small, and yet they believe that chances JFK was killed by just a sniper are VERY GREAT!
In addition, more than 3 centuries ago ISAAC NEWTON discovered the UNIVERSAL 2ND LAW OF DYNAMICS = change of momentum on a body is directly proportional to the force applied, and this change in momentum takes place IN THE DIRECTION of the applied force.
Now, in Kennedy’s assassination, Zapruder’s film proved that Kennedy’s head moved violently backward to the LEFT, after the mortal shot, in total agreement with universal 2nd law of dynamics, as a consequence of a shot clearly coming from the grassy knoll/picket fence area!
And yet, we have people who are denying UNIVERSAL physical laws, movies and statements by 47 witnesses, purporting to support the FALSE THEORY OF THE LONELY ASSASSINATION!
So, this argument regarding reliability of witnesses makes no sense. When someone is biased, you may find 20, 40, 1000 witnesses, movies, photos, 300 public notaries, etc. , but NO PROOF CAN PERSUADE A BIASED PERSON!

INT21 + eburacum, you are simply biased, your comments make no sense!

 

AlbertM2018

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
15
Points
3
#7
@ INT21 + eburacum

Please, read the Gospel!

Here is what the Rich man said at the end:

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So, one can show you even someone who raised from the dead, but – as JESUS CHRIST said – you would deny in the same way. You’re simply stubborn skeptics, no proof can persuade you.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,228
Likes
1,173
Points
169
#8
All I ask is that you edit your paper to reflect the truth of the case. This is a very interesting case, but you are doing the facts a disservice if you report it incorrectly.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#9
I have heard of this case before; the curious fact that Baker noticed nothing is very important. You can't say that he 'indirectly confirmed' the statements of the other two. In fact he confirmed nothing. Twisting his lack of evidence into an 'indirect confirmation' is an error. Yet you persistently say 'the three youths noticed' this and 'the three youths saw' that. Please edit it so that the true facts are presented.
I think the point about Baker is that he did see the same things that the others saw, but being a London lad he had no idea that there was anything unusual about them. He just assumed that country folk were very backwards and primitive, so saw no reason to question the experience.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#10
@ INT21 + eburacum

Please, read the Gospel!

Here is what the Rich man said at the end:

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So, one can show you even someone who raised from the dead, but – as JESUS CHRIST said – you would deny in the same way. You’re simply stubborn skeptics, no proof can persuade you.
I'm not sure that the Kersey case provides absolute proof but it does provide some interesting evidence about time slips. I think we need to keep on collecting data and before getting into futile disputes about whether any case can be considered "proof" of the phenomenon look for clues, patterns in the data, that might point to what is going on. As far as "proof" goes there are plenty of other cases just as convincing as Kersey.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#12
I'm not sure that this incident is in any way indicative of anything other than how tenuous the evidence for paranormal incidents can be, and still have that event regarded as significant.
I certainly think this event is significant. The level of detail, the fact that the experience left such a strong impression on the two witnesses who knew something was wrong that they could recall it years later, the fact that they correctly identified a building in the village that had indeed once been a butchers shop centuries before, all suggest that "tenuous" is hardly a fair description. What precisely would you regard as evidence that is not tenuous?
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,941
Likes
1,335
Points
159
#13
I certainly think this event is significant. The level of detail, the fact that the experience left such a strong impression on the two witnesses who knew something was wrong that they could recall it years later, the fact that they correctly identified a building in the village that had indeed once been a butchers shop centuries before, all suggest that "tenuous" is hardly a fair description. What precisely would you regard as evidence that is not tenuous?
Carl, it's a very hard question to answer as to what evidence you'd accept for a phenomena for which there is none. So I can't really answer that. And that's not intended to sound facetious, that is a genuine reply.

This Kersey case is frankly not worth considering in terms of something anomalous actually having occurred. It's based entirely on a subjective reconstruction of a subjective impression initially made by two or three teenagers, 30 years previously. And for the them to have remembered anything in detail over that length of time, much less enough to pick out the 'butcher's shop' they saw again in a photograph, or even while visiting the location itself, isn't something any non interested party could possibly take seriously.

Like the Bampton case, there is nothing strange about this case in terms of the paranormal, or amateur physics. In my opinion though it remains interesting though as a lesson in how poorly evidence is scrutinised, and how much bias is present when revisited.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,228
Likes
1,173
Points
169
#14
My guess is that the three lads wandered into someone's shed or outhouse, and found a carcase or two hanging up; they mistook their location, which is why they couldn't see the church. Incidentally, my wife has made an interesting suggestion- back in the Fifties, health inspectors would often use green dye to mark meat that was not for human consumption- that might explain the 'mouldy' appearance of the carcases. Or they may have been game animals, hanging up to mature.

Note that there is no actual proof that the church was ever obscured by trees, and this seems quite unlikely - contrary to most people's imaginings, there were fewer mature trees in the old days, because they were generally grown for commercial reasons and the growth was harvested before reaching full height. We have many more mature trees in the UK nowadays than have existed here for many, many centuries, because they are no longer harvested in this way.
 
Last edited:

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,534
Likes
4,001
Points
229
#16
Albert,

..You're just wasting yr. AND MY time with irrelevant remarks..

a very sophisticated response. So you want everyone to accept your writings without adverse comment ?

By the way, I'm an atheist so you can junk all that Gospel garbage for a start. That stuff is yet another example of belief without proof; sounds right up your street.

Carl,

..
I think the point about Baker is that he did see the same things that the others saw, but being a London lad he had no idea that there was anything unusual about them. He just assumed that country folk were very backwards and primitive, so saw no reason to question the experience.


Even if Baker was from the city it was 1953, not 1753 or 1853. People from the city do travel. Only a complete moron would have thought that the situation the others were claiming to experience wasn't worthy of comment.

There is something wrong with the whole story.

I aught to add that having had a couple of similar out of time experiences in the past I do not deny their possibility. But the story as-is doesn't add up.

INT21
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,941
Likes
1,335
Points
159
#17
I'm not sure why the meat would have been game, hanging beef carcasses to mature is standard. I've a friend who's a farmer and has his hung foe at least 21 days, and that's only because recent regulations prevent the abattoir from hanging it any longer. Back in the 50's they have known how to get the best taste from their beef, and would have had the freedom to do it.

Like every other detail of this, it's completely mundane.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,534
Likes
4,001
Points
229
#18
If the meat had reached the stage of turning green then one would suspected that the area would be infested with flies. Also if it was sides of beef than why would anyone who had removed all the other things from the building leave them behind ? Meat was valuable back then.

INT21
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#19
Carl, it's a very hard question to answer as to what evidence you'd accept for a phenomena for which there is none. So I can't really answer that. And that's not intended to sound facetious, that is a genuine reply.

This Kersey case is frankly not worth considering in terms of something anomalous actually having occurred. It's based entirely on a subjective reconstruction of a subjective impression initially made by two or three teenagers, 30 years previously. And for the them to have remembered anything in detail over that length of time, much less enough to pick out the 'butcher's shop' they saw again in a photograph, or even while visiting the location itself, isn't something any non interested party could possibly take seriously.

Like the Bampton case, there is nothing strange about this case in terms of the paranormal, or amateur physics. In my opinion though it remains interesting though as a lesson in how poorly evidence is scrutinised, and how much bias is present when revisited.
OK, if that's too hard a question for you, then there's little point in continuing a dialogue. Your position is essentially subjective -- in your view the witnesses couldn't have remembered what happened, so they couldn't pick out the butchers shop (one of them did, which is a fact), and in any case no non interested party would take it seriously, so who cares. No attempt to specify what evidence you would regard as important or even vital, no attempt to assess the witness reliability, basically just a reiteration of your generally negative posture.
I think anyone who studies MacKenzie's account in detail, including the care with which he conducted his investigations, the obvious honesty and objectivity of the main witness, the detailed reconstruction of events, would be more careful about accusing others of poor scrutiny of evidence or bias.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#20
Albert,

..You're just wasting yr. AND MY time with irrelevant remarks..

a very sophisticated response. So you want everyone to accept your writings without adverse comment ?

By the way, I'm an atheist so you can junk all that Gospel garbage for a start. That stuff is yet another example of belief without proof; sounds right up your street.

Carl,

..
I think the point about Baker is that he did see the same things that the others saw, but being a London lad he had no idea that there was anything unusual about them. He just assumed that country folk were very backwards and primitive, so saw no reason to question the experience.


Even if Baker was from the city it was 1953, not 1753 or 1853. People from the city do travel. Only a complete moron would have thought that the situation the others were claiming to experience wasn't worthy of comment.

There is something wrong with the whole story.

I aught to add that having had a couple of similar out of time experiences in the past I do not deny their possibility. But the story as-is doesn't add up.

INT21
It doesn't seem that the two country witnesses made any efforts to persuade Baker that something was wrong about the village. Neither did he sense (or even remark on, it seems) the extraordinary transition from a cool autumn day to a warm sunny one as they entered the slip and the church bells abruptly ceased. I don't think he was a complete moron, but he was in an unfamiliar situation and had no way of judging just how strange it was. Nevertheless, when they left the slip, and it became again cold and dull, Laing remarked "... Roy Baker is a Cockney and it probably didn't occur to him that something was wrong, but I do remember we all felt it in the end and took to our heels."
Also worth quoting another comment of Laing that addresses the theory that they just got confused and that it was just a normal 1950s village:

"So, Sunday morning on a beautiful clear sunny day in a laneway full of homes, no people, dogs, nobody going to church or chatting by their doorways... the houses were very old in appearance and not detached. When one walks past homes... one sees evidence of wallpaper or flower vases in windows, etc., but in the laneway the windows in every house reflected back darkly except for one where there was a whitish-coloured wall showing inside, but the window-panes were too small to see through properly and mostly greenish in hue. We looked through windows, or at least one window, and I clearly remember a smallish room with a rear window. There was no furniture inside, no curtains, the white paintwork was dingy and had the appearance of ... a distemper or whitewash, certainly not of modern day quality.. There were no gardens in front of the houses, no electrical wires or antennae."

Later on he confirms that there were no TV aerials, wires or even street lights. The smoke that they had seen previously coming from the chimneys was no longer there. When they left the slip and the church bells began again, they looked back and again saw the smoke.

To my mind Laing's account is lucid, intelligent, and convincing.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,530
Likes
14,144
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#21
Does Mackenzie's (or anyone else's) account describe the reportedly key element of bell-ringing in detail?

The narrative flow as reported seems to consistently indicate bell ringing prior to entering the central area of the village (alongside the 'splash' / ford) and again after leaving this area. The bell ringing is offered as a hallmark clue to the purported transitions into and out of a time slip condition.

I want to know whether anyone's ever specified the type of ringing that preceded / followed the intervening period of reported silence - e.g.:

- a single bell chiming / tolling?
- multiple bells ringing together or in succession?
- multiple bells being played in a full peal (a melodic sequence or round involving all the bells)?
- was the style or manner of the ringing the same both before and following the period of silence?
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#22
Does Mackenzie's (or anyone else's) account describe the reportedly key element of bell-ringing in detail?

The narrative flow as reported seems to consistently indicate bell ringing prior to entering the central area of the village (alongside the 'splash' / ford) and again after leaving this area. The bell ringing is offered as a hallmark clue to the purported transitions into and out of a time slip condition.

I want to know whether anyone's ever specified the type of ringing that preceded / followed the intervening period of reported silence - e.g.:

- a single bell chiming / tolling?
- multiple bells ringing together or in succession?
- multiple bells being played in a full peal (a melodic sequence or round involving all the bells)?
- was the style or manner of the ringing the same both before and following the period of silence?
I'm sure that the witnesses were as ill-informed about different types of bell-ringing as I am, because although I have heard church bells ringing I doubt that I could answer any of your questions about them. Here is what Laing says:

About ten minutes after asking a local for the directions to Kersey, "..we saw and heard Kersey on our right-hand side. I can see clearly in my mind's eye the view and position of the roofs and church spire [actually a 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. We seemed to enter a little laneway with extremely ancient houses, almost medieval in appearance, on one side of the lane, which had a strong brown earthen surface, with lots of dust, almost like an Australian stony bush track. I was acutely aware of the silence...
[as they passed down the lane he had a prickly depressing feeling, then they drank from and sat by the stream for about ten minutes]... There was no sign of a church. I would certainly have seen it as I had a field of observation of 360deg. [Here he comments on the strangely quiet and motionless ducks, almost like decoys; and the unnatural appearance of the trees and sky, and the absence of bird sounds].. no breath of wind, no sound, and there was a definite absence of shadow. [Here he gives a detailed description of the butchers shop and the rotting oxen carcasses]: the general feeling certainly was one of disbelief and unreality. [Comments about other houses and emphasizes the difference between autumn light and the fresh greens of spring or early summer that they saw inside the village.]
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."
The third witness, Michael Crowley lacked Laing's detailed memory but his impressions regarding the village were the same: houses empty, no sign of church or pub, no aerials, telephone wires or street lights; no noise. He had felt that it must have been evacuated during the war and never resettled. He also insisted that (unlike modern Kersey) there was just one street and nothing else.

So no detail about the church bells, but just a complete disjoint between the view of the village from outside, with chimneys smoking and the church visible, and inside the village no people, no smoke and no church visible at all.

I don't see any way in which the witnesses can have imagined this or misinterpreted what they saw. They also leaned on the butcher shop window sill (a fact that MacKenzie avoids commenting on, since his pet theory is that the witnesses in time slips are simply experiencing visions of the past but not physically entering it). Laing wondered what would have happened had they tried knocking on some of the doors.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,941
Likes
1,335
Points
159
#23
OK, if that's too hard a question for you, then there's little point in continuing a dialogue. Your position is essentially subjective -- in your view the witnesses couldn't have remembered what happened, so they couldn't pick out the butchers shop (one of them did, which is a fact), and in any case no non interested party would take it seriously, so who cares. No attempt to specify what evidence you would regard as important or even vital, no attempt to assess the witness reliability, basically just a reiteration of your generally negative posture.
Carl, I understand that this might be your area of interest so believe me I take no joy in knocking it. But all I see in this is the same as I see in 99.9% of cases of the paranormal, an over estimation of the reliability of eye witness statements, an over confidence in the accuracy of memory, and frankly a suspension of disbelief.

I can't tell you what I'd consider to be persuasive evidence for the idea of a timeslip in general, but that's not the point here is it, this thread deals with the Kersey incident, and here I can definitely tell you why I find it lacking in substance.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#24
If the meat had reached the stage of turning green then one would suspected that the area would be infested with flies. Also if it was sides of beef than why would anyone who had removed all the other things from the building leave them behind ? Meat was valuable back then.

INT21
Good point. The witnesses couldn't smell the rotting meat either. It just seemed as if everyone had suddenly left the village and the butcher had left the ox carcasses behind.
 

Carl Grove

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
803
Likes
764
Points
94
Location
Bury St Edmunds
#26
Carl, I understand that this might be your area of interest so believe me I take no joy in knocking it. But all I see in this is the same as I see in 99.9% of cases of the paranormal, an over estimation of the reliability of eye witness statements, an over confidence in the accuracy of memory, and frankly a suspension of disbelief.

I can't tell you what I'd consider to be persuasive evidence for the idea of a timeslip in general, but that's not the point here is it, this thread deals with the Kersey incident, and here I can definitely tell you why I find it lacking in substance.
Well, I wouldn't rank this case extremely highly as a time slip, but I have no reason to reject anyone's honest testimony. As for "suspension of disbelief" I don't believe that an objective researcher should be subject to belief or disbelief -- one should just collect data and see where they lead. As someone who trained in Psychology (and did my postgrad research on memory) I am quite aware of the general unreliability of human memory, but a general statement about our cognitive skills shouldn't be taken to justify rejecting testimony in any specific situation, particularly if you choose to play this particular card when dealing with a phenomenon that you yourself are sceptical about. And as the late Prof Macdonald said once, talking about UFOs, but it is equally valid here, witnesses to a car crash may get speeds, sequences of events, all the key details wrong, but they never say they saw a giraffe colliding with a dinosaur. There is a core of experience in any given situation and that is what we need to determine.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,941
Likes
1,335
Points
159
#28
Well, I wouldn't rank this case extremely highly as a time slip, but I have no reason to reject anyone's honest testimony. As for "suspension of disbelief" I don't believe that an objective researcher should be subject to belief or disbelief -- one should just collect data and see where they lead. As someone who trained in Psychology (and did my postgrad research on memory) I am quite aware of the general unreliability of human memory, but a general statement about our cognitive skills shouldn't be taken to justify rejecting testimony in any specific situation, particularly if you choose to play this particular card when dealing with a phenomenon that you yourself are sceptical about. And as the late Prof Macdonald said once, talking about UFOs, but it is equally valid here, witnesses to a car crash may get speeds, sequences of events, all the key details wrong, but they never say they saw a giraffe colliding with a dinosaur. There is a core of experience in any given situation and that is what we need to determine.
Well then Carl, I suddenly find this conversation much more interesting. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you could cite the key elements of the men's testimony that you find significant.

As to giraffes v dinosaurs, this isn't what we're discussing here t all is it. We're dealing with impressions recalled thirty years later. And there, as you're knowledgeable on this subject, I'm sure you'd agree that witnesses certainly do add these sort of details in recollections. Especially as in this case two of the men discussed this prior to presenting their versions to McKenzie.

But that's beside the pint to a large extent, as I say, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested in hearing which details about this business you consider significant.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,534
Likes
4,001
Points
229
#29
It is Baker's response to the situation that bothers me. I do feel that, if things happened as the story suggests, then it is very strange that even a person from a different kind of town would not think something wasn't right.

In fact the whole story would be more acceptable if Baker was not in it.

INT21
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,530
Likes
14,144
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#30
... Here is what Laing says: ...
Thanks for the Laing quotation ...

I'm still struggling to make sense of the orientational cues (such as they are ... ) in the various accounts / retellings of this incident.

The central lane in the village of Kersey runs roughly north / south, with St. Mary's on the rise or small ridge to the south of the ford / 'splash' in the village's center.

I can't clearly determine what the 3 cadets' path into and out of the village may have been. Some accounts describe the events as if the trio was following the main lane through the village, but without specifying their general direction of travel.

The Laing account you quoted seems to indicate the boys approached Kersey from the east or west (via the fields extending to either side of the main road). This east / west directionality seems to be implied, but not explicit, within some accounts.

Another issue that bothers me is whether the trio was traveling strictly along the established lanes, versus hiking cross-country.

Laing's mention of scaling a fence is one of the few clearcut clues that they were cutting cross-country, and his is the only account I've seen that unambiguously indicates a direction of travel (east to west).
 
Top