nevermind, will answer better later.
Yeah, all good. But when the people of 1950 think future, they’re thinking cars and kitchens. WE have to imagine ourselves trying to convine them.
Tell them the Edsel will be unreliable, and that Tucker will fail. Talk about delayed windshield wipers and seat belt shoulder straps and air bags. A microwave in every kitchen and an ice maker which comes throught he fridge door.
Also music, tell them about the songs which will be hits, and how the music industry will change.
And don’t forget panty hose, that worked for Marty . . .
We could also tell them that thalidomide is causing all those birth defects, and that valium is addictive.
The most likely person you’ll be talking to is a psychiatrist. Most of us could describe the stages of grief and addiction pretty well, and talk about seratonin and dopamine and norepiniphrine.
I could tell him about systemic candiasis, and possibly cure one or two of his patients immediately. I’m not sure what anti-fungals might have been available at the time. I also might be able to help him with my knowledge of PTSD to treat some of his “Shell-shocked” patients.
I had the joyful experience of getting some fillings done Monday night, so I wondered about that, too. But I’m not sure it would be obvious that the fillings are fillings in the first place, and I’d rather not have anyone get anxious and yank the teeth out for a closer inspection.
Right- I did check Wiki before I posted. 
Either way, it might be a good trick. A few other future presidents would be reachable the same way.
Something like a cochlear implant would also be very, very convincing. Fortunately I don’t have those either.
Assuming we all don’t starve to death and can find a place to live so we dont die from exposure. The first thing I would do is go to a hospital and make some type of excuse to get xrays or some type of test done so they can see surgery I have had. That would not be possible back then. No future talk they would just think your crazy. Once enough doctors take note I would then explain being from the future.
I don’t think this is at all convincing. Some guy walks up to you today and says “There’s a family in Bumfart Montana with a kid named Bob. That child will be president someday.”
Time traveller or whackjob?
Today, when you can google anyone and get their phone number and address? No, it wouldn’t mean much. But in 1950, when people were not as interconnected, I think it might make an impression if you said “Ask the operator to connect you to Hope [or Hot Springs], Arkansas. Ask for the family of Roger Clinton and Virginia Blythe. Virginia’s son William Jefferson becomes governor of Arkansas and is elected president in 1992.”
You can’t prove the future part, but they might listen when they find the family exists, and by this point you may have already told them who else is going to be president between then and now. Of course, if they get the Clintons on the phone, you then have to resist telling them about Monica Lewinsky and what happens to the younger Roger Clinton.
But all that proves is that you can name a family that you chose in advance. Even without the internet, that’s not impressive at all.
The hard part of this question is predicting things that happen quickly enough to convince them, without being obvious enough to be passed off as a lucky or educated guess. Predicting presidents, for instance, is not impressive as there’s only 2 or 3 options at the time of election.
It’s not a Steady State Universe, but a Big Bang Beginning. And I can prove it.
What is Fred Hoyle’s 1950s phone number?
Proof of… what?
All you’ve done is come up with a new design for an automatic rifle. You haven’t invented anything, really. You’re not allowed to prove your bona fides by predicting the “future.” Why would someone in 1950 think that designing a new rifle proves you’re from the future? If I came to you with a nifty new design for an automatic rifle now and said it proved I was from the year 2068, you’d assume I was a clever but insane engineer.
The OP’s elimination of prediction as a means for proving one’s being a temporal tourist renders the challenge nearly impossible. Getting someone to believe you’re a time traveller is an astoundingly high hurdle to get over. Any invention that could practically be created in 1950 will simply convince a rational person you’re an inventor.
The only easy way to prove time travelling bona fides is prediction, I’m afraid. And you’d need to get a lot of predictions right BEFORE anyone believed you. You’d spend several years as a very unhappy, and probably institutionalized, Cassandra. Furthermore, the predictions would have to be extraordinarily detailed and specific. “Hey, this Algeria thing won’t work out” isn’t going to cut it, since of course lots of people at the time were saying the same thing. Imagine if someone came to you and said in mid-2003, “The Iraq thing will drag on for years and prove pointless. George Bush will be re-elected, though. This proves I’m a time traveller.” You’d think the guy was nuts, right? Sure, the predictions might be right, but big deal. Even predicting Presidential elections would impress nobody until your predictions many years out started becoming true.
It’s an interesting question. 99.99 percent of people, even on the dope, don’t have enough deep technical knowledge to convince anyone of anything if this knowledge was presented without context.( ie computers will be small and very fast). Interestingly, I think very mundane historical knowledge would be your best bet like sports scores and similar as your prediction power would be irrefutable.
Not sure if general history channel level descriptions of stuff like the enigma machine, Hans Bethe being the atom spy, fusion bombs etc would impress anyone. Was that info still classified in 1950?
The question was whether or not I could prove it, in the first part. And the second part was about revolutionary ideas. And yes, both things would show that I was from the future. If I knew all about cutting edge science I could prove that to scientists. If I knew about an infrastructure project that hadn’t yet been built, I could prove to everyone else. I think you’re confused about evidentiary standards here. And the question wasn’t, ‘In the 1950s’, it was in 1950. So if I spoke to Richard Feynman about nanotechnology before he came up with the idea in the late 50s and gave his famous speech then indeed I’d be ahead of the curve, but not so far ahead as to be incomprehensible.
It wouldn’t work for me, but some of our older Dopers could just point out their younger selves and have the authorities compare fingerprints.
Easily. I’d just call up Analog magazine and ask to see John Campbell. 5 minutes with him, and I’d be talking to RAH, Isaac, and the rest. That would establish my bona fides toot sweet. I know what they are going to write when, and can tell them what they got so wrong.
If they have not written it how is this going to prove anything? How will they know your assertion thay they are “wrong” is accurate at the time you make the assertion?
I could certainly prove it to my 12 year old father and his parents, and my 10 year old mother and her parents. I really don’t see how any harm could co
I know when and how Stranger In A Strange Land was written. Ditto several of Isaac’s works. When I tell them where and when and how their stories develop, I’ll have proven my case. Especially since no-one will have seen the stories yet. Those two will also be be the most open to encountering an actual time-traveller.
An especially evil and unethical person could write the stories themselves and take the cash, surely?
If I could write a tenth as well as they could, sure. But I can’t, so I’d settle for guiding them away from future stupid decisions. Isaac should stay away from transfusions, for example.
Predicting big natural disasters should do the trick, though for stateside I could only think of the great Alaskan earthquake of '64. If I have to wait that long, I’d just list off a string of World Series winners.
When were photogrey (Transitions) lenses invented? Ooo, Wikipedia says developed in the '60s popularized in the '90s. Assuming I’ve got my glasses when I get to the 1950s, all I have to do is walk outside and BOOM, I’ve got future tech. I don’t know how thick my glasses would have to be if made of actual glass; that might help with the cause.
I also have a pierced eyebrow. Think that would help at all?