JKR's site up-date - Rumours Section

[Eustace_Scrubb]

No: HPFGUIDX 127258


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com,  
> 
templar1112002 wrote:
> > >
> > > So, I believe that one of the famous theories is debunked...
> > > Ron is Ron, not Dumbledore.

Gregory Lynn then wrote:
> Which was hardly surprising, but nice enough of her to debunk it,
> so that it can rest in peace.
> >Actually all it means is that Dumbledore isn't Ron come back from
the future.
> >
> >He could still be a Ron that is artificially aged or who went back
> >to the past and grew old from there.  Or even a Ron from the past
> >resulting from a cloning of the current Ron after he goes to the
> >past in the future.

Troels Forchhammer followed up:
> Not even by a stringent logical analysis of the text can it be 
> brought to allow any such scenario.
> 
> "NONE of the characters in the books has returned from the future."
> 
> That means that none of the characters is an older version of 
> another character. Thank god.

Eustace_Scrubb notes:
While I am as thankful as you about this, Troels, it still means that
there are many possibilities not closed off re: time travel.
For example, _someone else_ may have travelled to the past and become
Dumbledore. Or, at the very least, ONE of the characters may have come
from the PAST.  One of the characters may be a younger version of
another character.  And much depends on exactly which "future" she's
talking about.

The time travel speculators have only been given a minor setback with
this comment.  Then again, it's a better answer than "Erm, I don't
think so."

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb