“Reopening of the South Fork Bridge after flood in Nov. 1940. 1941 (?)”
</blockquote>It’s the short description for the photograph shown at the http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.p ... 234%26amp&pos=1, from British Columbia, Canada. The image can be seen http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.p ... 793%26amp&pos=1 (scroll down to the middle), among other items of the online exhibit. Did you notice anything out of place? Or perhaps, out of time?
The man with what appears to be very modern sunglasses seems to be wearing a stamped T-shirt with a nice sweater, all the while holding a portable compact camera!
Internet people reached to the obvious conclusion: it’s a time traveller caught on camera on 1940! Finally, we have proof!
If the story seems http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204686/ and the photo is in itself a great funny find, the most amusing thing i came up with while looking into this – as an Internet person, on the Internet – was the reply for a skeptical, or perhaps somewhat cynical comment on how spurious it would seem the idea that a time traveler would want to visit the reopening of a bridge in some small town in Canada.
Read this on Doc Brown’s voice: “Of course, because we know nothing happened there right? But if we are considering time travel, how can we know if in some other timeline something historical happened right there?”
Indeed! Once you consider time travel, everything changes. But before writing Hollywood scripts, let’s get back to reality and ask again: is the photo evidence of a time traveller?
The sourceAs noted, the image is indeed available through the http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/index-eng.jsp. It was part of the exhibit “http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.p ... 26amp&ex=234%23” from Bralorne-Pioneer, available to the public since 2004. It was put online since February this year, perhaps before that. And the peculiar “time traveller” image was only noted as such in the end of March, when it was linked on main websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread553942/pg1 and http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments ... on-camera-from-1941.
Given the source, we would assume the photo is authentic, and correctly dated to c.1940. Indeed, an http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1ef0c43/ suggests the image was not digitally tampered with, or at least that if it was, the author was smart enough to normalize the error across the whole thing.It’s a good job, if it was a job. And again, given the source, we would assume it was not a job.
So, how do we explain the man out of time?