Strange experiences of Victor Goddard


Registered Senior Member
Hello All,
Here is the link to the stories of Victor Goddard.
There are some stories of spirit's photos etc. Probably not very interesting.Then there is the story of his time slippery. More interesting. What is intriguing is his unusual dream of the air crash and how he perished in this crash.Here is the link:

"Victor Goddard’s third encounter with the mysterious, this time involving a frightening dream, took place in the Far East, just after the end of World War II.
It began at a cocktail party given in his honor. It was a party he would never forget. How would you feel if you were at a cocktail party given in your honor and overheard someone talking sadly but in vivid detail about your death in an airplane crash, and you knew you were going to fly the next day? What would you feel if you had learned at the party that your death had been described in a powerful dream, and the dream accurately predicted events that soon started to take place?
The afternoon cocktail party for Air Marshal Sir Victor Goddard took place in Shanghai in January 1946. The war against Japan had ended five months earlier, and Goddard was transferring to a new assignment. The man who was grimly talking about his death was Captain Gerald Gladstone, commander of the Royal Navy cruiser H.M.S. Black Prince. Gladstone’s tone of sad certainty instantly collapsed into confusion when he saw the Air Marshal standing a few feet from him.
Goddard smiled at the flustered officer. “I’m not quite dead yet,” he said. “What made you think I was?”
Gladstone hesitated before replying but when he did, it was with grim conviction. He told Goddard of a vivid and horrifying dream he had experienced the previous night. Goddard, now quite interested, pressed Gladstone for details, which the naval officer nervously supplied. In the dream, Goddard and three British civilians-two men and a woman-were flying over a rocky shore, off the coast of either China or Japan. It was evening, and they were flying through a ghastly storm. They had just flown over the mountains when their plane crashed.
“I watched it all happen,” Gladstone emphatically confirmed. “You were killed.” Gladstone further stated that the crashed aircraft was “an ordinary sort of transport passenger plane. Might have been a Dakota.”
Later that evening, at a dinner the British Consul General gave in honor of Goddard, the Air Marshal learned to his surprise and shock that his military flight would also be taking civilian passengers, something not usually done. Goddard had understood that it would be impossible that the plane which had been assigned to take him to Tokyo could also ferry civilians, but this now proved to be the case. There were three civilian passengers: the Consul General, a journalist, and a young female stenographer-two men and a woman, all British, exactly as reported in the dream-who would accompany him. Given the dream, it is easy to understand why Goddard was especially reluctant to allow the young woman to travel with him and face what he began to feel was certain death in a plane crash.
Their plane was a Dakota transport-also as indicated in the dream. It left Shanghai for Tokyo early the next morning. There was a terrible flight through clouds, exactly as in the dream, some of it over the mountains of Japan, again exactly as in the dream. The Dakota captain was forced to crash-land his plane in the early evening during a snowstorm. He crashed on the rocky, shingle shore on an island off the coast of Japan, again as in the dream, but this time with one vital difference. Everyone survived.
As time went on, as with the flight over Drem Airfield, Goddard could not get the event out of his mind. On January 2, 1947, about a year after the crash, he wrote Gladstone and asked for more particulars regarding the harrowing dream. In his letter he told the naval officer, “For the next 48 hours I was quite convinced that I was going to die and wondered how many unfortunate passengers would share the experience with me.”
Gladstone’s reply, dated January 30, 1947, stated in part: “I am sorry to say that I am unable to fill in any details of the dream…I clearly remember now what I remembered of my dream at the time: and that was a conviction that YOU WERE DEAD…I have never made a point…of recalling every detail of my dreams the instant I awake.” Gladstone thus claimed to have remembered absolutely none of the details Goddard attributed to him.
Both officers were of unimpeachable character and both agreed that this was a precognitive experience. Why is there a vital difference in their two accounts? There is the possibility that Gladstone related the specific details of his dream to Goddard at the cocktail party and then later forgot both the details and that he had told them to the Air Marshal.
In 1950, four years after the party, Goddard, still disturbed by the event, wrote an article about the incident for the Saturday Evening Post. The article, printed on May 26, 1951, was the first time the story became public. Goddard did not use Gladstone’s real name or that of his cruiser, but he did send a copy of the manuscript to the naval officer for suggestion and comment before it was printed. Gladstone again stressed that he had not remembered any of the specific details of his dream. Does that matter? What matters are the awful power and certainty of the dream to the dreamer. Gladstone awoke absolutely convinced that Goddard was dead. All day before the cocktail party the naval officer expected to be informed of the Air Marshal’s death. He only went to the party when no such news was received, but was still positive of Goddard’s death and kept vehemently saying so at the party where the Air Marshal overheard him. Gladstone also maintained that he had never experienced anything like this dream and remained at a complete loss to explain it. If we also cannot explain it, we still might further wonder why Gladstone experienced it in the first place. If it was meant to be a warning, why was it not sent to someone closer to Goddard, or to Goddard himself?
Is there a bottom line here? Did Gladstone glimpse a future? Was there an alternate or probable future in which a Sir Victor Goddard did indeed perish in an air crash? Gladstone reported that in his dream he “watched it all happen.” Just where was he while he was watching?"

See, I saved You from the reading the entire link ,just posting the most intriguing part here.
Enjoy,and let me know what You think
How would you feel if you were at a cocktail party given in your honor and overheard someone talking sadly but in vivid detail about your death in an airplane crash, and you knew you were going to fly the next day?
Dreams are not predictions. It wouldn't trouble me at all. But flying out of China in those days wasn't like taking a commercial flight today. It was dangerous.
Dreams are not predictions. It wouldn't trouble me at all. But flying out of China in those days wasn't like taking a commercial flight today. It was dangerous.
Thanks, spidergoat.You know,I tried to discuss such things on different forums,but on them people make a mockery of that and trolling.And here at least we can discuss it in descent manner
Hello All, Here is the link to the stories of Victor Goddard.

Supposed reports of prescient dreams are abundant throughout history. Even when they were literally provided by the person at the claimed time, they are still suspect via the measure of their likelihood. For instance, there are billions of individuals having dreams each night which are confined to a finite number of oneiric themes. So statistically some of those virtual reality events can [rarely] correspond [roughly] with actual occurrences [either local or distant in relation to the dreamer].

In addition: Selection bias, unconscious perception, and self-fulling prophecies play a role in regard to explaining other types of premonition affairs.

There is no means to make oneiromancy possible in the established, formal conceptions and accepted natural mechanisms of science (as they currently stand). Arguably, natural philosophy was solely an empirical enterprise [not depending upon reason-outputted preconditions and theoretical structures for its evaluations] only during its earliest, infant days. Thus, it's an outdated mistake that groups ranging from creationists to paranormalists make in contending that this or that submitted extraordinary item of theirs can't be judged while sitting in an armchair -- that is, dismissed negatively on the basis that it does not fit into any [non-fringe] institutional paradigm.

What you should remember is that there is systematically always going to be a non-occult explanation or "non-disruptive of worldview" loophole for purported mysterious things and happenings. Even if some supernatural stratum were the case, its influences would -- by definition of a translative boundary between it and the natural realm -- be converted into the mechanistic relationships and statistical tendencies of the extrospective cosmos that consciousness presents and science studies.

IOW, there is no proof to be garnered for anomalous adventures in the public or inter-intersubjective arena which all multiple human agents can access. "Revelations" are purely for personal validation or acceptance, barring any uncommon manifestations at the same time to limited sets of individuals or those engaging in similar practices (who still couldn't substantiate or verify their experiences to a much larger audience for the aforementioned reason, apart from potential gullibility of the latter). Trying to craft a private revelation into a public one becomes a contradictory meme which then is dissonant with both the context it is native to (personal esotericism) and the context it is alien to (exoteric community). The consequences can be disastrous as much as pseudo-enlightening or harmonizing for the assimilated others, since there's usually an element of egocentric gain on the part of the person, cult. or party taking that violating route.
Statistically, some dreams, which are made up of components of one's waking experiences, are bound to have some connection to reality, if only by chance. It doesn't mean that there is anything significant or supernatural about that. But those are the ones that we remember and make into stories. It's a kind of selection bias.