1901-08-10: ベルサイユ宮殿で "time-slip" したふたりの体験の詳細 ⇒ この機序を推測する

2025年1月29日 · 約74分

前置き

この事件は有名で過去記事でも取り上げた(*1)が、Jimmy Akin がこの事件を細部に至るまで解説している。

冒頭から 6:40 あたりまではカトリックの教皇に関する内輪話なのでスキップ推奨。

文字起こしも添付しておく。

(*1)

有名なベルサイユ宮殿で time-slip した事件の後日談 (2022-09-19)

動画(1:25:05)

The Versailles Time-Slip (Moberly-Jourdain Incident, An Adventure) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World

この事件の機序を推測する

以下、Jimmy Akin の主張どおり、W.H. Salter による

The most damaging analysis of their claims appeared in 1950, written by W.H. Salter. Salter concluded, based upon a close review of Jourdain and Moberly's correspondence with the Society for Psychical Research, that many details included in the accounts they had (supposedly) written in 1901 had actually been added at a much later date, in 1906, after the women had conducted extensive historical research. This discovery cast serious doubt upon their claims, because their entire case had rested upon the impossibility of the two of them, in 1901, being able to give an accurate description of 1789 Versailles.
It is likely that the two women sincerely believed that they saw something mysterious on their visit to Versailles in 1901. But they so badly wanted others to believe that they had seen something that, whether consciously or not, they embellished their evidence. In this way they managed to reassure themselves of the reality of their ghóst sighting and simultaneously persuaded a significant portion of the public to share their belief.
ref: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missionquestfpb/slips-in-time-and-or-reality-slips-t730.html

という説は否定され、捏造や仮装パーティの可能性は排除できるものと仮定する。

その場合、私は以下のように推測する。

Eleanor Jourdain の無自覚の遠隔視能力が過去のヴェルサイユ宮殿の情景を彼女に認知させ、

さらに、

共鳴認知によって彼女が同伴していた Charlotte Moberly にもその一部を認知させた。

実際、この二人は事件開始直後から夢の中のような意識状態になったと述べている（15:25から）。

遠隔視で過去や未来の情景を認知できることは CIA の依頼で Ingo Swann が確認している(*1)。さらに遠隔視で過去の人間と対話した（と思った）という証言もある(*2)。

（客観対象の五感による認知ではなく）遠隔視＋共鳴認知であるがゆえに、ふたりは類似した情景を見たが、それでも大きな食い違いも生じた。

なぜ、Eleanor Jourdain の能力であって、 Charlotte Moberly の能力ではないと判断できるのかと言うと、

Eleanor Jourdain はこの同伴旅行が仕事の採用試験を兼ねていたので、安定した心理状態からは程遠かった。Charlotte Moberly が同伴した彼女に満足しなければ仕事は得られないゆえ。
1902-07-02 に現場を一人で再訪し、その時も同様の "time-slip" を体験している
後に学長になった Eleanor Jourdain は妄想/強迫観念的な行動をとって周囲と軋轢を生じた（動画の 35:30 あたりの解説：ドイツのスパイがいると彼女は確信）。これも無自覚の（誤りの多い）遠隔視が影響したゆえの行動だと解釈できなくもない。

(*1)

Russell Targ : Ingo Swann が座標データだけで、中国の核実験失敗の光景を 3日前に遠隔視 (2020-11-12)

Paul H. Smith（米軍の遠隔視能力者）による "USS Stark" 事件の遠隔視実施状況の詳細＋予知した光景のスケッチ (2024-07-10)

(*2)

Bill Ray: 遠隔視では、対象現場にいた過去の人間と交流が可能なことがある (2024-10-07)

同様の事例は他にもある

過去記事で取り上げた記憶があるが、

歴史的建造物を訪れた時、気づかぬうちに現場が過去の情景になっていて（＝一時的に過去を訪れたと思って）驚いた

という証言事例がある。これも（過去の情景の）遠隔視だと判断する。

FasterWhisper AI(large-v2 model)

▼原文展開

Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is brought to you by the StarQuest Production Network and is made possible by our many generous patrons. If you'd like to support the podcast, please visit sqpn.com slash give. You're listening to episode 244 of Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World, where we look at mysteries from the twin perspectives of faith and reason. In this episode, we're talking about the Versailles time slip. (0:00:32)

I'm Dom Bettinelli, and joining me today is Jimmy Akin. Hey, Jimmy. Howdy, Dom. In 1901, two English women were visiting the grounds of Versailles, the famous residence of kings, before the French Revolution. And while they were there, they began to feel funny. They encountered strangely dressed people, and they saw things that were different than they looked in 1901. When they compared notes afterward, they believed something very strange happened to them. (0:01:01)

And it became known as the Versailles time slip. What was the time slip? What really happened to the two women? And what could explain it? That's what we'll be talking about on this episode of Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World. Jimmy, what did you want to say to begin today? Well, I wanted to begin with an update on a previous episode. We're recording this on December 31st of 2022. It's a Saturday morning, and I woke up and was greeted by the news of the death of Pope Benedict XVI. And by the time you'll be hearing this, this won't be news. (0:01:43)

But I just wanted to say a couple of things before we look at today's mystery. Now, Pope Benedict is, to me, the greatest theologian of the 21st century, certainly in the church hierarchy. He's the theologian that's most influential on my own thought. And I have every confidence that he's going to be declared a saint one day. And there are a few reasons I say that. One reason is that's the recent trend in popes. (0:02:09)

In prior ages, popes would try to do things like great buildings or win great battles or things like that. The current trend is for popes to end up as saints. You look at the last several popes, and they're either already canonized or in the process of canonization. Even John Paul I, who reigned for a month, now has his cause open. (0:02:35)

And so I have every confidence the same thing's going to happen for Benedict XVI. And there's a special reason in his case, because he was the first pope to resign in 700 years. And that is a lesson for future popes to be willing to have that office, the highest office in the church. It's certainly the capstone of an ecclesiastical career. (0:03:06)

And to be able to walk away from that for the good of the church is an enormous act of humility that is a lesson to other popes. And the same thing happened with the last pope to resign, Celestine V. He was canonized in less than 20 years. And so I expect the same thing's going to happen with Pope Benedict XVI. But the reason I wanted to include this segment in today's show is because of a previous episode we did. (0:03:34)

It was episode number 123 on Fr. Michel Rodrigue, who was a French-Canadian priest and alleged visionary. (0:03:41)

He was alarming a lot of people with the prophecies he was making. He had an elaborate scenario involving the Antichrist, and the Antichrist persecuting the church, and Christians having to live for three and a half years in what he called refuges. And he was scaring a lot of people because he was saying a lot of this was going to happen really quickly. (0:04:08)

And so I did an investigation with some help from the Mysterious Irregulars, and we did an exposé on him. And at the same time, his two bishops, because he's incarnated in one diocese but lives in another, his two bishops repudiated his prophecies. And we announced that as part of the exposé. But there were still people who would say, oh, I still believe in Fr. Michel. Well, wait a little bit, and within a few months, his prophecies will be falsified. (0:04:38)

And they were, just as I said they would be. But some people said, oh, well, maybe, I mean, prophecy, maybe he's just wrong on the timing, but it's all still going to happen. Well, not anymore. That's not a possibility, because some of his prophecies involved Pope Benedict XVI. And he specifically said that Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis were going to be martyred. (0:05:08)

He said Pope Francis would be martyred first, and then Pope Benedict XVI would attempt to call a council, but he would be forced to flee Rome, go into hiding, he would be found, and then he would be martyred as well. Here is the passage where Fr. Rodrigues says that. The Antichrist is in the hierarchy of the Church right now, and he has always wanted to sit in the chair of Peter. Pope Francis will be like Peter the Apostle. He will realize his errors and try to gather the Church back under the authority of Christ, but he will not be able to do so. (0:05:40)

He will be martyred. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who still wears his papal ring, will step in to convene a council, attempting to save the Church. I saw him, weak and frail, held up on either side by two Swiss guards, fleeing Rome with devastation all around. He went into hiding, but then was found. I saw his martyrdom. So, according to Fr. Rodrigues' vision, Pope Francis would be martyred first, and then Pope Benedict would also be martyred after attempting to call a council and fleeing from Rome. That did not happen. (0:06:21)

And so, this is not just a time shift. It's not just a delay in the prophecy being fulfilled. The prophecy was, as I said all along, false. And I urge supporters of Fr. Michel Rodrigues to reconsider their support of him in light of this prophetic failure. All right. So, back to today's mystery, the Versailles time slip. Jimmy, who were the two women at the heart of today's mystery? They were named Charlotte Moberly and Eleanor Jourdain. Miss Moberly was the 10th child in a family of 15. She was born in 1846, so she was 54 years old at the time of today's mystery. (0:07:04)

And Miss Jourdain was the oldest of 10 children. She was born in 1863, so she was 37 years old at the time of the mystery. Both of them were English women. Both of them were from big families. Both had fathers who were clergymen. (0:07:16)

And both were unmarried, so they were known as Miss rather than Misses. And they were both academics. Miss Moberly was the principal or chief academic officer of St. Hughes Hall at Oxford University, which had been founded, St. Hughes Hall, as a women's college in an age when women's colleges were rare. (0:07:45)

St. Hughes, in fact, wouldn't admit its first male student until 1986. But Miss Moberly's work was taxing, and she needed an assistant. So Miss Jourdain applied for the position in 1901. Miss Jourdain had been working as a tutor for English students in Paris, in France, where she had been living at the time. And after Miss Jourdain applied for the position, it was decided that she and Miss Moberly would spend some time together to see if they would be compatible for a working relationship. (0:08:12)

Miss Moberly thus accompanied Miss Jourdain back to her residence in Paris for a working vacation. They would be doing vacation activities, but the purpose was to see if they would have a good working relationship. To me, this seems like a really strange way to do a job interview. If I applied for a job, I would not expect to be told, I'm interested in you for the position. (0:08:37)

Let's go on vacation together. I'll come back to where you live and have a vacation. I wouldn't really like the prospect of having a boss come to my place for a vacation, but that's what happened. And in the end, Miss Jourdain did get the job. What happened while they were in Paris? They decided to do a tour of French historical sites and they weren't overly familiar with these sites, so it would be a learning experience for both of them. One of the places they decided to go was Versailles. Versailles is a sprawling estate about 12 miles from Paris. It was originally built as a hunting lodge for King Louis XIII in the 1600s, but it grew over time with new construction and became more important. (0:09:22)

Eventually, it became the royal residence, and in fact, it was the last royal residence. King Louis XVI and his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, were still living there in 1789 when the French Revolution occurred. Versailles is an extremely posh pile. It's known for its fabulous opulent architecture and furnishings. Two of the structures at Versailles are known as the Grand Trianon and the Petit Trianon. Grand means big, and petit means little, and trianon means palace, so they are the big and little palaces. (0:10:10)

At the time of the Revolution in 1789, the Grand Trianon was being used by King Louis XVI, and the Petit Trianon was being used by Queen Marie Antoinette. That takes us up to the beginning of our mystery, which occurred on August 10, 1901, when Miss Moberly and Miss Jourdain visited Versailles. What happened? Yeah, well, by the way, Miss Jourdain is English, so Jourdain rather than Jourdain. I know. (0:10:39)

Now we're doing a French mystery. I have to say everything in French. The first thing they did was take a tour of the Palace of Versailles, which is different than the two trianons. But then they decided to do something else, and Miss Moberly picks up the story. Finding that there was time to spare, I suggested our going to the Petit Trianon. My sole knowledge of it was from a magazine article read as a girl, from which I received a general impression that it was a farmhouse where the Queen, Marie Antoinette, had amused herself. (0:11:09)

Looking in Baedeker's map, we saw this sort of direction, and that there were two trianons, and set off. (0:11:13)

Baedeker's is a popular set of guidebooks for tourists in Europe. After reaching the beginning of the long water, we struck away to the right down a woodland glade, until we came obliquely to the other water, close to the building, which we rightly concluded to be the Grand Trianon. We passed it on our left hand, and came up a broad green drive perfectly deserted. (0:11:35)

If we had followed it, we should have come immediately to the Petit Trianon, but not knowing its position, we crossed the drive and went up a lane in front of us. I was surprised that Miss Jourdain did not ask the way from a woman who was shaking a white cloth out of the window of a building at the corner of the lane, but I followed, supposing that she knew where she was going to. (0:11:57)

What Miss Moberly did not know is that Miss Jourdain did not see this woman. Miss Jourdain continues the story. We went on in the direction of Petit Trianon, but just before reaching what we knew afterwards to be the main entrance, I saw a gate leading to a path cut deep below the level of the ground above. And as the way was open, and had the look of an entrance that was used, I said, Shall we try this path? It must lead to the house. (0:12:24)

And we followed it. To our right, we saw some farm buildings looking empty and deserted. Implements, among others a plow, were lying about. We looked in, but saw no one. The impression was saddening, but it was not until we reached the crest of the rising ground, where there was a garden, that I began to feel as if we had lost our way, and as if something were wrong. (0:12:48)

There were three paths in front of us, and as we saw two men a little ahead on the center one, we followed it and asked them the way. Afterwards, we spoke of them as gardeners, because we remembered a wheelbarrow of some kind close by, and the look of a pointed spade, but they were really very dignified officials, dressed in long grayish-green coats, with small three-cornered hats. (0:13:09)

They directed us straight on. Notice that the two men that they took to be gardeners were very strangely dressed. I mean, nobody wears three-cornered or tricorn hats anymore. And the other people they encountered were similarly dressed in old-fashioned clothes. Ms. Jourdain also describes the gardeners this way. There were two men there, in official dress, greenish in color, with something in their hands. It might have been a staff. A wheelbarrow and some other gardening tools were near them. (0:13:36)

They told us, and answered to my inquiry, to go straight on. I remember repeating my question, because they answered it in a seemingly casual and mechanical way, but only got the same answer, in the same manner. As we were standing there, I saw to the right of us, a detached, solidly-built cottage, with stone steps at the door. (0:14:00)

A woman and a girl were standing at the doorway, and I particularly noticed their unusual dress. Both wore white kerchiefs tucked into the bodice, and the girl's dress, though she looked 13 or 14 only, was down to her ankles. The woman was passing a jug to the girl, who wore a close white cap. What Mr. Dane did not know was that Miss Moberly did not see this woman and the girl. (0:14:25)

Miss Moberly continues, We walked briskly forward, talking as before, but from the moment we left the lane, an extraordinary depression had come over me, which in spite of every effort to shake off, steadily deepened. There seemed to be absolutely no reason for it. I was not at all tired, and was becoming more interested in my surroundings. I was anxious that my companion should not discover the sudden gloom upon my spirits, which became quite overpowering on reaching the point where the path ended, being crossed by another right and left. (0:14:54)

Following the directions of the two men, we walked on, but the path pointed out to us seemed to lead away from where we imagined the Petit Trianon to be, and there was a feeling of depression and loneliness about the place. I began to feel as if I were walking in my sleep. (0:15:11)

The heavy dreaminess was oppressive. So now, at about the same point, they're both feeling funny, they're both feeling gloomy and depressed, and Mr. Dane says that there was a heavy dreaminess that was oppressive. In front of us was a wood, within which, and overshadowed by trees, was a light garden kiosk, circular and like a small bandstand, by which a man was sitting. (0:15:38)

There was no greensward, but the ground was covered with rough grass and dead leaves, as in a wood. The place was so shut in that we could not see beyond it. Everything suddenly looked unnatural, therefore unpleasant. Even the trees behind the building seemed to have become flat and lifeless, like a woodworked in tapestry. (0:15:58)

There were no effects of light and shade and no wind stirred the trees. It was all intensely still. The man, sitting close to the kiosk, who had on a cloak and a large shady hat, turned his head and looked at us. That was the culmination of my peculiar sensations and I felt a moment of genuine alarm. The man's face was most repulsive, its expression odious, his complexion was very dark and rough. (0:16:21)

I said to Miss Jourdaine, which is our way, but I thought nothing will induce me to go to the left. Miss Jourdaine reports the same thing. At last we came upon a path crossing ours, and saw in front of us a building consisting of some columns roofed in and set back in the trees. Seated on the steps was a man, with a heavy black cloak round his shoulders, and wearing a slouch hat. (0:16:49)

At that moment the eerie feeling which had begun in the garden culminated in a definite impression of something uncanny and fear-inspiring. The man slowly turned his face which was marked by smallpox, his complexion was very dark, the expression was very evil and yet unseeing. And though I did not feel that he was looking particularly at us, I felt a repugnance to go and past him. (0:17:13)

But I did not wish to show the feeling which I thought was meaningless, and we talked about the best way to turn and decided to go to the right. But before they moved on, this happened. It was a great relief at that moment to hear someone running up to us in breathless haste. Connecting the sound with the gardeners, I turned and ascertained that there was no one on the paths, either to the side or behind us. (0:17:34)

But at almost the same moment I suddenly perceived another man quite close to us, behind and rather to the left hand, who had apparently just come either over or through the rock or whatever it was that shed out the view at the junction of the paths. The suddenness of his appearance was something of a shock. (0:17:54)

The second man was distinctly a gentleman. He was tall with large dark eyes and had crisp curling black hair under the same large sombrero hat. (0:18:00)

He was handsome and the effect of the hair was to make him look like an old picture. His face was glowing red as through great exertion, as though he had come a long way. At first I thought he was sunburned, but a second look satisfied me that the color was from heat, not sunburning. (0:18:19)

He had on a dark cloak wrapped across him like a scarf, one end flying out in his prodigious hurry. Miss Jourdain describes the man this way. I remember that the man was young-looking, with a florid complexion and rather long, dark hair. I do not remember the dress, except the material was dark and heavy and that the man wore buckled shoes. Miss Jourdain also notes that he spoke French in an unusual accent. (0:18:45)

He shouted, Madame, Madame. And when I turned, he said, in an accent that seemed to me unusual, that our way lay in another direction. He looked greatly excited as he called out to us. You must not go that way. He then waved his arm and said with great animation, This way, look for the house. Though I could not follow all he said, it was clear that he was determined that we should go to the right and not to the left. (0:19:08)

Though we were surprised to be addressed, we were glad of the direction, and I thanked him. The man ran off with a curious smile on his face. I went instantly towards a little bridge on the right, and turning my head to join Miss Jourdain in thanking him, fun to my surprise that he was not there, but the running began again, and from the sound it was close beside us. (0:19:34)

The running ceased as abruptly as it had begun, not far from where we stood. Silently we passed over the small rustic bridge which crossed a tiny ravine. So close to us went on the bridge that we could have touched it with our right hands. A threadlike cascade of water fell from a height down a green pretty bank, where ferns grew between stones. (0:19:54)

We then followed a narrow path, till almost immediately we came upon the English garden in front of the Petit Trianon. The house was a square, solidly built, small country house, quite different from what I expected. The long windows looking north into the English garden, where we were, were shuttered. The place was deserted, but as we approached the terrace, I remember drawing my skirt away with a feeling as though someone were near, and I had to make room, and then wondering why I did it. (0:20:21)

Now we come to something extremely significant. As they were heading towards the Petit Trianon, Miss Moberly saw a woman sketching on the lawn, but Miss Jourdaine did not see the woman, even though she was looking at the same area. There was a terrace round the north and west sides of the house, and on the rough grass which grew quite up to the terrace, and with her back to it, a lady was sitting holding out a paper, as though to look at it at arm's length. (0:20:50)

I supposed her to be sketching, and to have brought her own campstool. It seemed as though she must be making a study of trees, for they grew close in front of her, and there seemed to be nothing else to sketch. She saw us, and when we passed close by on her left hand, she turned and looked full at us. (0:21:05)

It was not a young face, and, though rather pretty, it did not attract me. She had on a shady white hat perched on a good deal of fair hair that fluffed round her forehead. Her light summer dress was arranged on her shoulders in handkerchief fashion, and there was a little line of either green or gold near the edge of the handkerchief, which showed me that it was over, not tucked into, her bodice, which was low cut. (0:21:27)

Her dress was long-waisted, with a good deal of fullness in the skirt, which seemed to be short. I thought she was a tourist, but that her dress was old-fashioned and rather unusual, though people were wearing fichu bodices that summer. I looked straight at her, but some indescribable feeling made me turn away annoyed at her being there. We went up the steps to the terrace, my impression being that they led up direct from the English garden, but I was beginning to feel as though we were walking in a dream, the stillness and oppressiveness were so unnatural. (0:21:59)

Again, I saw the lady, this time from behind, and noticed that her fichu was pale green. It was rather a relief to me that Miss Jourdain did not propose to ask her whether we could enter the house from that side. We crossed the terrace to the southwest corner and looked over into the Cour d'Honneur, and then turned back, and seeing that one of the long windows overlooking the French garden was unshuttered, we were going towards it when we were interrupted. (0:22:25)

The terrace was prolonged at right angles in front of what seemed to be a second house. The door of it suddenly opened, and a young man stepped out onto the terrace, banging the door behind him. Miss Jourdain describes the same young man as a boy, though boy and young man are overlapping terms that can be synonyms. (0:22:49)

While we were on the terrace, a boy came out of the door of a of his slamming it behind him. He directed us to go round to the other entrance, and seeing us hesitate, with a peculiar smile of suppressed mockery, offered to show us the way. He had the jaunty manner of a footman, but no livery, and called to us saying that the way into the house was by the Cour d'Honneur, and offered to show us the way around. (0:23:11)

He looked inquisitively amused as he walked by us down the French garden till we came to an entrance into the front drive. The feeling of dreariness was very strong there, and continued, till we actually reached the front entrance to the Petit Trianon, and looked round the room in the wake of a French wedding party. While we were in the front entrance hall, we were kept waiting for the arrival of a merry French wedding party. (0:23:37)

They walked arm in arm in a long procession round the rooms, and we were at the back, too far off from the guide to hear much of his story. (0:23:42)

We were very much interested, and felt quite lively again. Coming out of the Cour d'Honneur, we took a little carriage which was standing there, and drove back to the Hotel de Reservoir in Versailles where we had tea. And that was the end of their experience. And then what happened afterward? At first they didn't realize how weird their experience was, but then they started talking about it, and realized that it was really strange. (0:24:11)

Not only did they meet strangely attired people wearing old-fashioned clothing, they also felt weirdly depressed during much of the experience, though they hadn't shared that with each other at the time. And then there was the fact that they didn't both see all the same things. One of them would see people, and the other would not. (0:24:34)

So in November of 1901, three months after the experience, they decided to write down independent accounts of what had happened, without consulting each other, so that they could get their own thoughts on paper, and then compare them. What we've just heard is an interwoven combination of two of their published accounts. When they put the accounts side by side, they decided that the situation was so strange that it warranted further investigation. (0:25:02)

And they decided to do research to see what they could discover. How did they proceed? One of the things they did was have Miss Jourdain make a return visit to the site, and look it over again, and see if she could find what was currently at the places they observed. So on January 2nd, 1902, Miss Jourdain returned to the Petit Trianon. One of the places that she visited was called the Hameau de la Reine, and forgive my French pronunciation, Hameau de la Reine means the Hamlet of the Queen. And this was a little model farm and village where Marie Antoinette would meet and entertain her friends and herself. (0:25:41)

The model farm also produced milk and eggs for the Queen, and little model farms like this were fashionable among the French aristocracy at the time. Miss Jourdain writes, There was, so far, none of the eerie feeling we had experienced in August. But, on crossing a bridge to go to the Hameau, the old feeling returned in full force. It was as if I had crossed a line and was suddenly in a circle of influence. (0:26:07)

To the left, I saw a tract of park-like ground, the trees bare and very scanty. I noticed a cart being filled with sticks by two laborers, and thought I could go to them for directions if I'd lost my way. The men wore tunics and capes with pointed hoods of bright colors a sort of terracotta red and deep blue. (0:26:33)

I turned aside for an instant, not more, to look at the Hameau, and when I looked back, men and cart were completely out of sight. And this surprised me, as I could see a long way in every direction. And though I had seen the men in the act of loading the cart with sticks, I could not see any trace of them on the ground either at the time or afterwards. (0:26:49)

I did not, however, dwell upon any part of the incident. Went on to the Hameau. The houses were all built near a sheet of water, and the old oppressive feeling of last year was noticeable, especially under the balcony of the House of the Queen, and near a window in what I afterwards found to be the dairy. (0:27:12)

So, like before, she got an eerie depressed feeling at a certain point, and she saw two men in strange clothes loading a cart with sticks. They had capes and pointed hoods. One of them was wearing dark red, and one was wearing deep blue. And when she turned away for a second, both they and their cart vanished, even though she could see a great distance. (0:27:29)

So, something preternatural seemed to be happening. Miss Jourdain then refers to a building known as the Belvedere, which was a small pavilion that had been built for Marie Antoinette. Meaning to go to the Belvedere, I turned back by mistake into the park, and found myself in a wood so thick that though I had turned towards the M.O., I could not see it. (0:27:55)

Before I entered, I looked across an open space towards a belt of trees, to the left of the M.O. some way off, and I noticed a man, cloaked like those we had seen before, slip swiftly through the line of trees. (0:28:06)

The smoothness of his movement attracted my attention. So, she found herself in a thick wood, so thick that she couldn't see the M.O. any longer, and that'll be important, so remember it. Also, she saw another man in the same kind of hooded cloak that she had previously seen, and he was moving swiftly through the line of trees. I was puzzling my way among the maze of paths in the wood, when I heard a rustling behind me, which made me wonder why people in silk dresses came out on such a wet day. (0:28:37)

And I said to myself, just like French people. I turned sharply around to see who they were, but saw no one, and then all in a moment I had the same feeling as by the terrace in the summer, only in a much greater degree. It was as though I were close in by a group of people, who already filled the path, coming from behind and passing me. (0:29:01)

At one moment, there seemed really no room for me. I heard some women's voices talking French, and caught the words, Monsieur et Madame, said close to my ear. The crowd got scarce and drifted away. So she heard a rustling behind her that sounded like women walking in big silk dresses, but then she turned around and didn't see anybody. (0:29:26)

She also felt that she was surrounded by a bunch of invisible people who were coming up behind her on the path and passing her, so many that she didn't feel there was room for her on the path. This is kind of like when during the first visit, she felt she needed to draw her skirt away to make room for someone to pass her, even though there was nobody there. (0:29:49)

Now she heard women talking in French and caught the words, Monsieur et Madame, or Mr. and Mrs. in English, and then the crowd thinned out and drifted away. Then faint music, as of a band not far off, was audible. It was playing very light music with a good deal of repetition in it. (0:30:08)

Both voices and music were diminished in tone, as in a phonograph, unnaturally. The pitch of the band was lower than usual. The sounds were intermittent, and once more I felt the swish of a dress close by me. Miss Jourdain was an accomplished musician, and she later wrote down twelve bars of this music from memory for later analysis. She also felt the swish of another dress near her. (0:30:30)

I looked at the map, which I had with me, but whenever I settled which path to take, I felt impelled to go by another. After turning backwards and forwards many times, I at last found myself back at the Orangerie, and was overtaken by a gardener. Elsewhere, the gardener is described this way. She met a very tall gardener of apparently great strength with long, muscular arms. (0:30:53)

She thought that with his long hair and grizzled, untidy beard and general appearance, he had the look of an Englishman rather than a Frenchman. He was dressed in a rough, knitted jersey, and a small, dark blue round cap was set at the back of his head. (0:31:08)

I asked him where I should find the Queen's Grotto that had been mentioned in the Nulhawks' book on Versailles, which I had procured while in Paris. He told me to follow the path I was on, and in answer to a question, said that I must pass the Belvedere, adding that it was quite impossible to find one's way about the park unless one had been brought up in the place, and so used to it that no one can mislead you. (0:31:38)

The expression especially impressed me because of the experience I had just had in the wood. He pointed out the way and left me. The path led past the Belvedere, which I took for granted was the building we had seen in August, for coming upon it from behind, all the water was hidden from me. I made my way from there to the French Garden without noticing the paths I took. (0:31:57)

So the tall gardener looked like an Englishman to her rather than a Frenchman, although they spoke in French. He gave her some directions, she went past the Belvedere, which she took to be a building that they had seen in August. And that was the last of the unusual experiences she had on January 2nd. What happened afterward? They continued their investigations off and on for the next several years, and in 1911, ten years later, they published a book about the experiences and what they had learned through their research. (0:32:38)

The book was called An Adventure, and it made a huge public sensation. Originally, it was published under two pen names. Miss Moberly was called Miss Elizabeth Morrison, and Miss Jourdain was called Miss Frances Lamont. They didn't make a secret of the fact that these were pen names, but you can understand why they used them. The authors were the heads of a prestigious college at Oxford University, and reporting a bizarre paranormal experience like this could severely damage their reputations as respected academics. (0:33:10)

What's more, they were the prestigious women's college at Oxford in an age when women's colleges were a new and dubious thing, so their reputations were doubly on the line if people started laughing and scoffing at them. Eventually, however, they published a later edition of the book under their own names, and the book is still in print today. Why did they decide to write the book? (0:33:33)

They explain that in the preface. It is a great venture to speak openly of a personal experience. We only do so for the following reasons. First, we prefer that our story, which is known in part to some, should be wholly known as told by ourselves. Secondly, we have collected so much evidence on the subject that it is possible now to consider it as a whole. (0:33:55)

Thirdly, conditions are changing at Versailles, and in a short time, facts which were unknown and circumstances which were unusual may soon become commonplaces and will lose their force as evidence that some curious psychological conditions must have been present either in ourselves or in the place. It is not our business to explain or to understand, nor do we pretend to understand, what happened to put us into communication with so many true facts, which nine years ago no one could have told us of in their entirety. (0:34:26)

But in order that others may be able to judge fairly of all the circumstances, we have tried to record exactly what happened as simply and fully as possible. (0:34:31)

What happened to them after the book was published? Well, they carried on with their academic careers. Charlotte Moberly continued to be the principal of St. Hugh's Hall, which became St. Hugh's College in 1911. She retired in 1915, and she remained a member of the college's governing council until her death in 1937 at the age of 91. Eleanor Jourdain remained Ms. Moberly's assistant until her retirement in 1915. Beginning in 1908, Ms. Jourdain took up a leading position in the women's suffrage movement, meaning that she wanted women to have the right to vote, and she would attend suffragette demonstrations in her doctoral robes because she had earned a doctorate by this time. (0:35:21)

After Moberly's retirement in 1915, Ms. Jourdain assumed her position as the principal of St. Hugh's College, but her tenure was a troubled one. Reportedly, she had an authoritarian management style. During World War I, she became convinced that there was a German spy in the college, and in late 1923, she got permission from the college council to fire a tutor that she thought was challenging her authority. (0:35:52)

The tutor was fired, but she appealed the decision, and many academics resigned in protest of Ms. Jourdain's actions. An inquiry was called for, and Ms. Jourdain initially welcomed this, but she suddenly died of a heart attack in early 1924 at the age of 60. Ms. Moberly thus outlived Ms. Jourdain, though she was 17 years older. In 1931, the fourth edition of An Adventure was published under their true names. (0:36:22)

This edition revealed that Ms. Elizabeth Morrison was really Ms. Charlotte Moberly, and that Ms. Frances Lamont was really Ms. Eleanor Jourdain. The fourth edition of the book was released after Jourdain's death and after Moberly's retirement, so while their reputations could still be tarnished, these voluntary revelations could no longer hurt them professionally. And the book became a classic for describing what's now known as a time slip. (0:36:52)

In fact, the Moberly-Jourdain experience is the most famous time slip of all. That's a term we haven't heard before. What is a time slip? Well, that's really the question. There's no agreed-upon definition of what time slips are or what they objectively represent. What happened in the cases of Moberly and Jourdain is that they were proceeding about their business, and then they noticed that they were encountering unexpected things, like people with strange accents who were wearing unusual old-time clothing, before returning to a modern-day setting. (0:37:29)

From their perspective, it looked like they had temporarily slipped back in time, and so this became known as a time slip. Did they really go back in time, or did something else happen? That's the mystery that we need to consider in this episode. And before we get to the rest of that mystery, I want to take a moment to thank our patrons who make this show possible, including John A., Samuel K., Michael C., Naomi S., and Chad G. Their generous donations at sqpn.com give make it possible for us to continue Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World and all the shows at StarQuest, and you can join them by visiting sqpn.com give. (0:38:18)

Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is also brought to you by Fairvento Law PLLC, now assisting clients with expungements and set-asides of Michigan convictions. (0:38:23)

To learn more, call 231-202-3321 or go to fairventolaw.com, f-i-o-r-v-e-n-t-o-law.com. And by DeliverContacts.com, offering contact lenses at low prices with free delivery. Visit DeliverContacts.com. Jimmy, what theories are there about the Versailles time slip? The basic question we need to consider is whether this report could have a natural explanation or whether it requires a paranormal one. (0:39:00)

Under the heading of natural explanations, this could be a hoax that the women made up, a case where they imagined everything, a case of a shared delusion, or a case where they fell prey to false memories of what they had seen. Then there are theories involving the idea that the two women merely misperceived what they were seeing. For example, that they saw employees of Versailles who were wearing historical costumes, or a case where they stumbled across people reenacting something from history, such as part of making a cinematograph or what they used to call primitive motion pictures, or possibly seeing people at a private costume party. (0:39:41)

What about paranormal explanations? What would the theories be here? Some of the ones that have been proposed include it could have been an apparition, meaning they encountered ghosts, or haunting, which in parapsychology is a kind of place memory or recording laid down by people when they were still alive. It could have been a case of telepathy with a living person, or a case of the women subconsciously using ESP to pick up information about the past of the place and then hallucinating based on that information. (0:40:17)

Or it could have been a case of retrocognition, so maybe the women directly perceived the history of the site by retrocognition. Finally, the women could have actually moved back in time and then come forward again. What can we say about the Versailles time slip from the reason perspective? Let's start with the theory that it was all a hoax that the women made up. (0:40:43)

Is it possible? It's not impossible, but it doesn't appear to be the case. In the first place, they don't seem to have much of a motive for hoax. It certainly wouldn't be getting attention since they initially published the book under pen names, and it's entirely understandable why they would want to use pen names. Miss Moberly was the highly respected principal of a college at the prestigious Oxford University, and Miss Jourdain would become vice principal and later principal of the college. (0:41:11)

And since it was a women's college in a day when women's colleges were rare, especially at a place like Oxford, you can see why they wouldn't want to damage their academic reputations by associating an apparently paranormal thing like this with themselves. What about money? An adventure became a bestseller. (0:41:37)

Could money have been a motive for hoax? Maybe, but they didn't know that the book would become a bestseller, and they'd have to split the royalties two ways. Furthermore, the story isn't of a highly dramatic nature. They just see a few oddly dressed people and talk to them. It's not like they went back in time and were swept off their feet by romances with famous historical figures. So you wouldn't expect bestsellerdom from a story like this. (0:42:03)

There were much more exciting ghost stories already being published. Furthermore, they really did a huge amount of research. They interviewed a bunch of people and Miss Jourdain went through historical archives in France trying to determine whether the things they reported could fit things in the present day and whether they fit what was in the historical records. (0:42:27)

And that's an awful lot of work to do, not expecting to make a lot of money from it. So you don't think they were hoaxing? No, they both told friends about the experience and they both maintained that it was true as long as they lived. (0:42:41)

Furthermore, the papers they generated in the process of the research were later donated. They're in the Budleian Library in Oxford today. And these records contain letters that the two wrote to each other, letters that were private between the two of them. And when you read those letters, it's clear they really believed that they had had this experience. So, no, I don't think it was a hoax. (0:43:08)

Then let's look at the next theory. Could this just be a case where they imagined all these things? No, you don't innocently imagine something like this and believe it was real when actually nothing happened. You might hallucinate something like this, but the women were not under the influence of drugs, nor did they have mental illnesses that would cause hallucinations. They were prestigious academics who would hold down those jobs for years. (0:43:33)

Furthermore, when a person hallucinates, that doesn't cause a second person to hallucinate the same things. And there were things that both of them saw, like the two gardeners picking up sticks that they asked directions from, or the man with smallpox on his face, or the young dark-haired man who gave them directions to the Petit Trianon, or the young man dressed like a footman who led them around the building. (0:44:07)

They later learned that this man had emerged from the chapel of the Petit Trianon, and so they referred to him as the Chapel Man. Could this have been a delusion? Psychology does recognize a condition called the shared delusional disorder. It does. Shared delusional disorder is commonly known as folie a due, which is French for madness of two. We discussed a fascinating and bizarre case of what might have been folie a due back in episodes 162 and episode 163 on Pauline Dakin's secret childhood and her experiences with the weird world. (0:44:43)

But one of the preconditions for folie a due is that the people involved have a close emotional relationship. It usually occurs within members of the same family, but it always occurs among people who have a close emotional relationship, and that takes time to develop, and so does folie a due. None of this fits Miss Moberly and Miss Jourdain. They weren't members of the same family. (0:45:12)

They weren't in a close emotional relationship. Miss Jourdain was just applying for a job. They barely knew each other, and they'd only just met. And the whole purpose of going on the trip to Paris was to help them to get to know each other better. Furthermore, while folie a due is sometimes reported to involve hallucinations, I haven't been able to find evidence of it causing two people to hallucinate the exact same thing at the same time. (0:45:43)

And historically, there's been a dispute about whether it's even possible for more than one person to hallucinate the exact thing at the same time. So I don't think shared delusional disorder is a good explanation. What about the idea that they fell prey to false memories of what they'd seen on their visit to Versailles? This theory has an advantage in that it allows their experience to at least be substantially real. It's just that they had memory distortions that seemed to make it more unusual than it was. That's something that doesn't require mental illness or hallucinations, which the evidence is against. (0:46:27)

The case for this view is that they didn't initially discuss their experience. It was a week later when they first started comparing notes, and they waited from August to November before they wrote down their accounts. That at least allows some time for them to forget or misremember things. But it's still quite weak. It's true that memories can fade and distort with time. (0:46:53)

It's also true that people can develop false memories. But they both found the experience notable at the time it occurred. And that notability would lead them to think about it during the week that they didn't discuss it. The mental reviewing of the event would then reinforce the memories of what had happened. Then, a week later, they finally discussed it and realized that it seemed strange to both of them. (0:47:20)

And soon they wrote down independent accounts of what they had experienced to prevent one another from influencing the other. That's not as great as if they had both immediately and independently written down their accounts the instant they got back from Versailles, but it's still pretty good. I'm not saying that they didn't remember things. That's always possible, and it's even likely. But it shouldn't affect the core or substance of their story. (0:47:48)

Furthermore, as we'll see later, in their research, they found aspects of their experience that did not correspond to the way things were in 1901 France, but that did correspond to things in the historical record. Then let's turn to explanations that involve the ladies just misinterpreting things that they actually did see. Did the employees of Versailles wear historical costumes in 1901? (0:48:17)

For the most part, no. With one exception, the gardeners. You'll recall that on her January 2nd, 1902 visit, Miss Jourdain met a very tall gardener. She described him as wearing a rough-knitted jersey and a small dark blue round cap being set at the back of his head. According to an adventure, in August 1908, we were told by a former gardener that their dress now is the same as the traditional dress of the Ancien Régime, viz., a rough-knitted jersey with a small casquette on the head. (0:48:51)

The Ancien Régime, or Old Régime, refers to the period before the French Revolution, which began in 1789. So, in 1901, the gardeners were dressed like those that had been there before 1789. And that could explain this gardener that Miss Jourdain saw on her second trip. But it would not explain the other men they saw, because the staff at Versailles in 1901 did not, in general or as a body, wear pre-revolutionary uniforms. (0:49:28)

It also would not explain other aspects of their experience, as we'll hear. What about the idea that the women stumbled into some kind of historical reenactment? Could they have come across a historical movie being filmed? In the first place, they didn't see any people using motion picture cameras, which at the time were quite large and should have been seen. (0:49:53)

Such cameras were even larger than the ordinary box cameras people were using at the time to take pictures. They also didn't see any directors or other movie film crew standing around, which is most of what you do when you're filming a movie, you stand around. Furthermore, Miss Moberly and Jourdain checked about this possibility. They write, "...in September 1910, the question of such representation was settled by an inquiry of the authorities. (0:50:24)

No leave to take cinematographs had been granted in August 1901." There also are other problems with the idea that they stumbled onto people making a movie or a cinematograph. We won't go over them all, but the bottom line fact is that the women checked and there had been no permit issued for filming during the month of their visit. (0:50:42)

What about the idea that they stumbled onto a private party? The curator of Versailles, Pierre de Nolak, suggested this possibility. However, as Marc Lamont explains, "...the Nolak thought the explanation for the lady's experience was attributed to a fête held at the Petit Trianon in 1901. In fact, the fête referred to was held at Marie Antoinette's Hamlet on Thursday, June 27, 1901, and another was held in July. The ladies confirmed the dates and photographic images of both fêtes were unlike anything they saw during their August 10th visit. (0:51:23)

After viewing photographs of the June 1901 fête, not only was it held on the wrong day and in the wrong location, but the large number of men and women present were dressed in early 20th century fashion." And that's quite true. When you look at the pictures of these fêtes or parties, the people are not in pre-revolutionary dress, but in early 20th century dress. (0:51:43)

So, apart from the fact that the parties were held before the women visited and that the parties were in the wrong locations, these were not costume parties. Also, the strangely attired people they saw were not partying. The first two men were loading sticks into a wheelbarrow, which is work behavior rather than party behavior. The next man they saw, the guy with smallpox, was sitting by himself rather than with a group of partiers. (0:52:15)

The next man they saw ran up to them by himself and offered directions. The woman was sitting by herself, and the chapel man was by himself and helped them find their way. They never saw a party, party supplies, or groups of more than two people in a single location. Are there any other natural explanations that would account for the way the people were dressed and what they were doing? (0:52:37)

The most common proposal was that they stumbled onto a kind of party being thrown by a man named Count Robert de Montesquieu. He was an aesthete, a poet, an art collector, and a dandy. And he did throw fancy dress parties. In particular, he was known to throw parties for his friends in which they put on tableaux vivants. (0:53:07)

The phrase tableaux vivants is French for living picture. In these, people would get together and put on a scene. It could be a scene from history or from life. (0:53:13)

The actors would remain silent and motionless. They'd be carefully posed, and they'd often have props, scenery, and costumes to complete the scenes. Why people like doing this, I don't know. It seems rather boring to me. But tableaux vivants were popular, and Count Montesquieu liked putting them on with his friends. So the hypothesis is that the women visited Versailles on a day that Count Montesquieu was holding one of his parties, and they saw several tableaux vivants. (0:53:44)

What do you make of this theory? It's hypothetically possible, but it's really iffy. In the first place, people are supposed to be silent and motionless during a tableau vivant. It's a living picture, and pictures don't talk to you. But that's not what Moberly and Jourdain saw. They saw a woman shaking a sheet out a window. The men with the wheelbarrow were not frozen. (0:54:11)

They were putting sticks in it. Miss Jourdain thought that the woman handing a jug to a girl might have frozen while she was watching them. The man with smallpox was not frozen. The man who ran up to them was really most sincerely not frozen. The woman sitting by herself was not frozen. And the chapel man who led them around the petit trianon was also really most sincerely not frozen. (0:54:44)

Also, they spoke to the men with the wheelbarrows, with the man who ran up to them, and the chapel man. So these people were definitely not silent. So the people did not seem to be enacting tableau vivant. Also, there was no record of Montesquieu holding such a party in 1901, while there were records of other parties being held at Versailles. Mark Lamont writes, Montesquieu seemed to have given up his Versailles lifestyle sometime during the 1890s and returned to live in Paris. An address on letters and visiting cards from the year 1896, found in the University of Paris's Bibliothèque Littéraire, Jacques Tusset confirmed the count lived at 80 Rue de l'Université, Paris. This information may prove Montesquieu was no longer living at Versailles in 1901, but it does not completely rule out the possibility he might have returned to Versailles during 1901 to hold a small gathering. (0:55:42)

However, if Montesquieu was still a frequent visitor to Versailles, then someone would have surely pointed out his entertainments as a likely explanation for the ladies' encounters. Ms. Jourdain consulted directly with curator Denolac himself about the 1901 events, but he made no reference to Montesquieu, even though he was personally acquainted with him, which could reinforce he was aware Montesquieu no longer frequented the Trianon by 1901. Nobody even thought of this idea for six decades. (0:56:16)

I mean, none of the people between 1901 and the publication of an adventure thought of it, and it wasn't even proposed until the mid-1960s, so it's a late-after-the-fact speculation that never occurred to the people most closely connected with Montesquieu or the event. Further, Lamont points out that this theory does not explain visual features seen by the ladies, such as Ms. Jourdain's cottage, the small kiosk, and a level walkway between the small Trianon Palace and the chapel. (0:56:46)

So, while this theory is not impossible, it's actually quite weak. In fact, none of the naturalistic explanations are particularly good. (0:56:57)

Then let's turn to the paranormal ones. Could they have just encountered ghosts? This is an interesting theory. It doesn't get discussed as much as some of the other paranormal theories, but I think it's worth exploring. In parapsychological terms, encounters with ghosts are known as apparitions. The ghosts appear to people, and so they're called apparitions. (0:57:23)

The ghosts often appear at a location that was significant to them during their lives. They often appear wearing clothes like those that they wore during life. From the faith perspective, they may still be hanging around on earth in connection with their postmortem purification, or purgatory, before moving on to heaven. When they appear to people, they can look like they're physical people, and the witnesses may not even realize that they were talking to an apparition. So, they can be mistaken for the living. (0:57:54)

What about the number of ghosts Moberly and Jourdain would have encountered in this scenario? Is that in any way strange? It may not be as many ghosts as you might think. During their August visit, they reported seeing or talking with nine notable individuals. But maybe they weren't all ghosts. Some of the people that Moberly and Jourdain encountered could have been living people, particularly towards the beginning and the end of the experience. (0:58:25)

But the more strangely dressed people, like those in the middle of the experience, could have been ghosts. It is unusual to encounter so many ghosts in one location. Often people only see one ghost. But that may be due to the fact that people often encounter ghosts in houses, and not that many people live in a typical house at one time. However, lots of people lived and worked at Versailles. The royal family spent time there between the reigns of Louis XIII and Louis XVI, so that's four generations. (0:59:00)

The royal family also brought their friends to the place, so they had lots of aristocratic visitors and hangers-on, including, I gather, some of your ancestors, Dom? That's right. On my mother's side, I had French aristocracy before the French Revolutions, and I know that some of them actually lived at Versailles, so... Kind of captive rich people pets? Yes, it's a weird time in the French time, yes. (0:59:26)

And, of course, there were other government and military officials that the royal family did business with, as well as all of their servants, who were quite numerous. So lots of people lived there, and that could be responsible for a larger number of ghosts being associated with the place. Are you aware of other parallel cases where so many ghosts have been reported in a single location? I am, and we'll devote a future episode to one such site. (0:59:55)

In San Francisco Bay, there is a museum on the USS Hornet. The Hornet was an American aircraft carrier during World War II, and today it's a sea, air, and space museum docked in Alameda, California. That's where the nuclear vessels are in Alameda, in case that information ever comes in handy. But the Hornet is also the site of a very high number of reports of both apparitions and hauntings. (1:00:23)

At least based on the reports, it would appear that there is a whole ecosystem or community of ghosts there, comprised of former military personnel and their families. And again, based on the reports, it looks like the ghosts have self-organized and are running their community with a military-like chain of command, so that people who were officers in life outrank enlisted men and give them orders, such as what they are and aren't allowed to do regarding the living visitors to the museum. (1:00:54)

Like, don't goose women visitors, that's not acceptable anymore. Goosing, or pinching a woman on the bottom, being something that World War II servicemen were known to do. It also looks like the ghost community there may have organized itself in order to get the Hornet turned into a museum, so that it wouldn't simply be scrapped. (1:01:20)

In any event, that's a very interesting story we can talk about in the future, but yes, I am aware of other situations in which reports would suggest that there is a community of ghosts in a location, so I can imagine there being one at a place like Versailles. Is there any evidence that would point away from ghosts as an explanation for what the two experienced? Yes, because it wasn't just the people that they saw. (1:01:45)

For example, they saw a kiosk where they encountered a sinister-looking man who had smallpox marks on his face. (1:01:52)

When Ms. Jourdain returned in January 1902, she initially thought that the Belvedere may have been this kiosk, but she later decided that that wasn't the case. Mark Lamont writes, There were only two kiosk-like structures in existence in the Petit-Trianon Gardens in 1901, the Belvedere and the Temple of Love. The ladies rejected both as having represented the structure they initially observed. (1:02:22)

Furthermore, Lamont writes about some information that was later discovered by a pair of researchers known as the Gibbons. It was not until the Gibbons' research of the Petit-Trianon in the 1950s uncovered evidence to support Ms. Morbelli's and Ms. Jourdain's claims of a kiosk in the area they indicated they saw one in 1901. The Gibbons discovered two important documents. The first described the grounds where the Belvedere and Rocher Bridge are now situated, being divided up into lots. (1:02:50)

The second document was dated from 1776, which described digging out and freeing from stones another part adjoining the circular pavilion within the same area. As a result of these findings, the Gibbons believed this information confirmed the existence of a light circular structure within the vicinity of the gardens where the ladies claimed to have seen one in 1901. The Gibbons also felt it would have inevitably been removed after 1776 when the gardens were remodeled for Marie Antoinette. So, it looked like the ladies saw a physical structure that no longer existed in 1901. Also, when they got to the Petit-Trianon, they encountered the chapel man who came out of a door and slammed it behind him. (1:03:43)

The ladies later identified this door as belonging to the chapel of the Petit-Trianon, which is why they referred to him as the chapel man. But this led to a new mystery. Lamont writes... In 1906, Miss Jourdain was given permission to enter the chapel. She found the interior to be in ruinous condition and access from the French garden was not possible. She noted the staircase used to reach the door the man had used in 1901, which led onto a small landing called the Tribune Royale, was completely broken down. (1:04:15)

The floor of the landing itself was missing and photographs taken by her show wooden planks used as a rough walkway. Her inspection of the outer chapel doors revealed that they had been bolted, barred, and cobwebbed over from age and disuse. Guides working at Versailles had also consistently told her of the impossibility of the doors having been opened in 1901. So, it looked like the chapel man could not have slammed this door behind him, because in 1901 the chapel was not in use, it was in a state of disrepair, and the door he came through could not be opened. (1:04:52)

So, the women experienced things that went beyond what ghosts normally do. What could explain what they saw and heard? One of the proposals was that they didn't experience apparitions, but they instead experienced a haunting. In parapsychology, a haunting is not what you'd think based on the name. Instead, a haunting is a kind of place memory, a recording that was laid down by living people at some point in the past. (1:05:18)

And if you're sensitive to it, you may experience that place memory. You may even see the same place memory over and over again. It's kind of like watching an old movie. Let's say the 1935 musical Top Hat, starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Astaire and Rogers recorded that back in 1935, when they were still alive, obviously. (1:05:45)

And now that the movie is recorded, you can watch it any time you like. And if you're a fan of 1930s musicals, you can watch it over and over again. So, maybe that's what Miss Moberly and Miss Jourdain encountered. Perhaps they went into a place memory of Versailles, where they saw a structure like the kiosk that no longer existed, and saw a servant slamming a door that was no longer in use in 1901. In fact, this was essentially what the two women concluded about their experience. (1:06:17)

They decided that they must have entered into a manifestation of Marie Antoinette's memory. They concluded that the well-dressed woman Miss Moberly saw, sitting by herself and possibly sketching, was the queen herself. And they noted that they experienced all this on August 10th, 1901, which was the anniversary of the day that the French monarchy was abolished. (1:06:49)

It fell originally on August 10th, 1792, 109 years earlier. So, August 10th was a very significant date for Marie Antoinette. And maybe that's why they had their experiences on this day. (1:06:56)

It was Marie Antoinette's memory that became the place memory or haunting that they encountered. After searching the records, they were even able to propose who some of the different people they met had been. For example, they proposed that the two men they saw putting rubbish into a cart were a pair of brothers who worked at Versailles and were named Rudolph and Fidel Bercy. They proposed that the man with smallpox was a nobleman known as the Comte de Vaudrey. And they proposed that the man they met at the chapel may have been a Swiss porter named Lagrange. But historically, Marie Antoinette and King Louis were not at Versailles on August 10th. They were in Paris and they were taken prisoner. How did Marbury and Jourdain explain that? (1:07:47)

They suggested that while she was in captivity in Paris, Marie Antoinette dreamed of being or fantasized about being back at Versailles. And that would be an understandable fantasy. If you're a queen who has just been taken prisoner by your own subjects, you might very well want to be back at your super luxurious home where you feel safe. And the intense emotion of your experience as a result of your current danger might lay down a place memory. (1:08:25)

The two later slightly modified this theory and suggested that the place memory wasn't all laid down on August 10th, 1792. They noticed that the man who ran up to them to give directions was not dressed appropriately for August. He was wearing heavier clothes that would be more appropriate for the fall or the winter. They also learned that after the fall of the monarchy, the last day Marie Antoinette went to the Petit Trianon was October 5th, 1789, a few months earlier. (1:08:59)

And that there had been men gathering rubbish into a cart on that date back in October. So they came to believe that the place memory they encountered incorporated elements from Marie Antoinette's memories from different times. What have other people thought about that? There's nothing that says there has to be only one place memory associated with a location or that a place memory can't incorporate elements from more than one day. (1:09:29)

But not everyone has been convinced that it was Marie Antoinette's memories they were accessing. Some researchers have pointed out that there are elements in what they saw that better correspond to the reign of Louis XV instead of King Louis XVI. So perhaps the place memory was laid down in the 1770s instead of the 1780s or 90s. It's also been noted that some of the things they saw match details of a plan for the garden devised by Marie Antoinette's gardener, a man named Antoine Richard. The plan was never implemented, but it has been suggested that they were actually walking through Richard's planned garden. (1:10:12)

So it would have been him, not the Queen, who laid down the place memory. It was something he dreamed about making, rather than something that was actually implemented. It's thus not clear if this was a place memory, who laid it down, or when they did so. It could have been laid down by more than one person, and it may have been laid down at more than one time. (1:10:37)

Are there any elements of their experience that would point away from this being a place memory or haunting? Yeah, it was interactive. In parapsychology, one of the main distinguishing characteristics of hauntings, which separates them or differentiates them from apparitions, is that you can't really interact with them. They're just like recordings, you know, you can't usually ask questions and get answers. (1:11:03)

But the women did talk with several individuals during their experiences. Initially, they talked to the two gardeners, then another man ran up to them and also gave them directions. They spoke with and followed the man at the And in her 1902 experience, Ms. Jourdan also spoke with the very tall gardener, although he may have just been a 1902 gardener wearing historical dress, as we mentioned. (1:11:26)

But none of this interaction, where you actually hold conversations with people, is characteristics of hauntings. What other theories are there about what could have been going on? One theory is that telepathy was responsible. Perhaps there was someone out there with extensive knowledge of the history of Versailles, and the women telepathically tapped into this person's knowledge, which resulted in their experience. (1:11:56)

While I can't 100% rule this out, this is just speculation that's not supported by any evidence, and it doesn't conform to known types of paranormal experiences. Even if you were in telepathic contact with someone with knowledge of the period, why would that knowledge manifest in the form of a hallucinatory interactive narrative? (1:12:13)

Another thing that's been proposed is retrocognition, which is the opposite of precognition. Precognition lets you pick up information about the future, but retrocognition lets you pick up information about the past. So the idea is that the two women had spontaneous retrocognitive experiences in which they picked up information about the past of Versailles. And what do you make of the retrocognition hypothesis? It's hard to say, and I can see some difficulties. (1:12:48)

One is why the experience would be so seamless and immersive. Normally, when people have spontaneous precognition or retrocognition, it either comes in the form of a dream or, and they weren't dreaming, or it interrupts your waking life, like if you have a sudden feeling or mental image. But it doesn't seamlessly blend into your waking experience and completely engulf you. (1:13:16)

You don't normally think you're walking around only to realize later that you were walking around in the past or the future. You don't have that kind of seamless integration with normal waking life, and you don't feel fully immersed in the time period you're viewing. Another problem, once again, is they interacted with people. (1:13:43)

If you were just viewing a scene from the past, you'd expect to see what people actually did back on that day, and you wouldn't expect to be able to talk with them and get answers because you weren't alive back then and they didn't talk to you. So simple retrocognition doesn't fit the it would have to be something more complex than that. (1:14:03)

Since this is referred to as a time slip, could the ladies have actually traveled back in time? That would explain why they'd be able to talk to people. It would, but there would also be things it wouldn't explain. Like, how did they move back and forth between the present and the past without realizing it? Why was the experience so seamless? I mean, there was no flash of light or cloud of smoke they walked through or anything like that. Also, is time travel to the past even possible? (1:14:32)

I'd love it to be true that people can travel to the past, but the matter is currently debated in physics and how it would have just happened spontaneously in this case would be a mystery. And it would be a mystery that happened twice because they ended up back in the present and it would have had to happen seamlessly since they didn't notice a distinct beginning or end to the experience. (1:15:03)

Aside from their ability to talk with people, can you think of any other evidence that might support the idea they literally traveled in time? One thing concerns something that happened when they got to the Petit Trianon and the chapel man guided them around to the front. Marc Lamont writes, the ladies later believed they were led from the French garden through an exit that no longer existed in 1901, which was once known as the Porte de la Menagerie. In an adventure, the women stated, the road from the garden to the avenue through which the man ushered us was not far from the chapel and was broad enough to admit a coach. (1:15:38)

The present one is narrower and farther to the west. So they believed that they were led through an avenue that no longer exists. Instead, the two buildings that it divided have since been joined, and so the avenue is no longer there. And they think they found the modern day remnants indicating where the road between the two buildings was. (1:16:05)

They also saw the road on some old maps, though other researchers have called what was on the maps into question. (1:16:09)

And they concluded that there may not have been such a passage between the buildings. If the ladies were right about the passage, then that would support the idea of actual time travel, because the passage no longer exists and they would have had to walk through solid walls. Is there a way that could happen if they didn't travel in time? There is a rare phenomenon that's reported called apportation. (1:16:40)

Apportation involves objects being transported across distances, including through solid walls. And it's sometimes reported that people have been apported, like when Jesus came out of the tomb without the rock being rolled away first, or when he visited the disciples after the resurrection, even though the doors were However, apportation is rare as a phenomenon, and there are questions about whether it even occurs, at least if you're not Jesus. Also, there may be another explanation. (1:17:11)

You'll note that this element of the story depends crucially on the women's memories of where the passage was located. If they simply misremembered, they might have been guided around or through a location that was just farther away, in which case there would be no need to propose that they went through a place that is now blocked by solid walls. (1:17:37)

So maybe this part of the experience had a natural explanation based on faulty memories. Are there aspects of their experience that would not be consistent with them literally traveling through time? The two women did not believe that they had literally traveled through time, and they did report things that are more suggestive of a visionary or psychic experience. (1:18:01)

For example, they reported seeing people and then moments later the people were no longer there, even though they had a clear view of their surroundings, making it hard to see how the people could have left or gotten out of sight so quickly if they were physical. That also makes it sound like the people simply vanished, and that would not be the case if they had literally gone back in time. (1:18:24)

It sounds more like a vision or psychic perception of people that then shut off. Also, during her January 1902 visit, Ms. Jourdain thought that she heard the sounds of invisible people, including the sounds of silk dresses swishing around her, and the people's conversation. Well, people in the past weren't invisible, so that suggests some kind of mental experience rather than one of literal movement in time. What can we say about the Versailles time slip from the faith perspective? (1:18:56)

Not much. There really isn't anything here that has an impact on the faith one way or another. The faith doesn't say anything about whether literal time travel is possible, or whether psychic abilities like telepathy or retrocognition exist, or whether hauntings or place memories occur. The faith does acknowledge that human souls survive death and can sometimes appear to the living, so the ghost hypothesis is definitely consistent with the faith, but that doesn't show that ghosts were involved in this incident. (1:19:31)

There could just be a natural explanation for what the women experienced. So then, Jimmy, what then is your bottom line for the Versailles time slip? I really don't know what to think happened in this case. It's a mystery to me. (1:19:43)

It's possible that there was a naturalistic explanation, but the proposed naturalistic explanations are weak. Though I think it's quite possible that some of the things they reported might have natural explanations, like maybe they just misremembered where the route that the chapel man led them through was. It's also possible that there was a paranormal explanation, but what the women experienced doesn't fit neatly into the recognized types of paranormal experiences. There's something about what they reported that's inconsistent with each of the recognized types. (1:20:26)

If I had to hazard a guess, and that's all this is, just a guess, I'd say that if something paranormal happened here, it might be a combination of apparitions and hauntings. Perhaps the ladies stumbled onto and then interacted with a community of ghosts explaining their interactions. But there also were place memories associated with the ghosts, like the kiosk where they saw the man with smallpox sitting, explaining why they saw things that no longer exist. And there is precedent for apparitions and hauntings taking place in the same location. (1:20:56)

It's reported, for example, that that happens on the USS Hornet. And it's also reported in the case of the haunted house of Marin County, which we talked about in episode 210, where there were both haunting phenomena and the apparition of a little girl. So who knows, perhaps that's what happened here. (1:21:23)

And Jimmy, what further resources can we offer on this topic? We'll have a link to where you can purchase the original 1911 edition of An Adventure. Also, Mark Lamont's book, The Mysterious Paths of Versailles, the Psy Encyclopedia's article on the Moberly-Jordane incident, also Wikipedia's article on it, a 1981 British TV movie called Miss Morrison's Ghosts that was based upon it, and information about Foliadieu. That's it from us. (1:21:52)

We would love to hear your theories about the Versailles time slip. You can let us know by visiting sqpn.com or the Jimmy Akins Mysterious World Facebook page, sending an email to mysterious at sqpn.com, sending a tweet to at mys underscore world, visiting the Starquest Discord community at sqpn.com slash discord, or calling our mysterious feedback line 619-738-4515. That's 619-738-4515. And hit the bell notification so that you always get a notification whenever I release a video, whether it's Mysterious World or something else, because I do other videos as well. (1:22:53)

And we're working our way towards 40,000 subscribers, so I really would appreciate it. Also want to say a thank you to Dom's wife and daughter, Melanie and Isabella, for the voice work on this episode. So, Jimmy, what's our next episode going to be about? Next episode, we're going to slip back in time again, way, way back, all the way to the beginning, in fact. (1:23:22)

We'll be doing a sequel to our How We Found the Universe episode and telling you the scientific mystery of the beginning of the universe. So stay tuned for next week's episode starts with a bang. Folks, be sure to check out the Mysterious World bookstore at MysteriousWorldStore.com for links to all the books and videos that Jimmy mentions in the show. (1:23:41)

You can find links to Jimmy's resources from our discussion on our show notes at Mysterious.fm slash 244. And remember, to help us continue to produce the podcast, please visit sqpn.com slash give. Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is also brought to you in part through the generous support of our sponsors, including Aaron Ferguson Electric and Automation at aaronv.com, a-a-r-o-n-v.com, making connections for life for your automation and smart home needs in North and Central Florida. Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is also brought to you in part by Catechism Class, a dynamic weekly podcast journey through the catechism of the Catholic Church by Greg and Jennifer Willits. It's the best book club, coffee talk, and faith study group all rolled into one. (1:24:35)

Find it in any podcast directory. Until next time, Jimmy Akin, thank you for exploring with us our mysterious world. Thanks, Dom. And once again, I'm Dom Thank you for listening to Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World on StarQuest. (1:24:45)

(2025-01-29)

前置き​

(*1)​

動画(1:25:05)​

この事件の機序を推測する​

(*1)​

(*2)​

同様の事例は他にもある​

関連​

FasterWhisper AI(large-v2 model)​

前置き

(*1)

動画(1:25:05)

この事件の機序を推測する

(*1)

(*2)

同様の事例は他にもある

関連

FasterWhisper AI(large-v2 model)