1. Time Travel Institute has been upgraded, courtesy of Mop's wallet and Cosmo's lack of social life! Feel free to explore the new features, one of us will post an announcement thread with a few highlights later tonight.

John Titor's faxes to Art Bell transcript in the 90s. What do you think as a 2012 viewer?

Discussion in 'Time Travel Discussion' started by servantx, Dec 21, 2012.


What do you think about John Titor in the Art Bell faxes as a viewer in 2012?

Sure, he is a real time traveller 2 vote(s) 14.3%
No he is fake, as I said so many years ago 9 vote(s) 64.3%
I still don't know, my logics make me think he is a hoax, but deeply in my heart I want to trust him 3 vote(s) 21.4%
  1. servantx Active Member

    By the way, time for celebration of your survival in that Mayan Calendar end of the world prediction, and Merry Christmas 2012 to you all. :)

    Now look back to John Titor's faxes to Art Bell back in the 90s, what do you think as a viewer from 2012? Is it easy or hard to determine the answer: Is John Titor Real or Fake?

    John Titor Fax 1
    John Titor Fax 2:
  2. John Titor was certainly correct concerning upcoming physics discoveries, as of late 2012, many very important discoveries have been made in the field of physics and quantum physics especially, that may indeed relate to future capability of time travel.
    Titor was incorrect to make assumptions or predictions about future events on a timeline in which he could not possibly predict, as he stated, 'a new timeline is created'. If that is the case then future events on that particular timeline can not be predicted.
    Titor was once again correct to divulge information in such a casual manner, with apparently no attempts at using fancy words or elaborate phrasings in an attempt to convince people he is a time traveller. Due to this fact, I believe he is probably authentic.
    Titor was once again correct, simply because he has not returned after leaving back in 2000. No word from him since, and, no similarly-worded claims from anyone else online that properly matches Titor's writing style (which could indicated Titor did return online, under a different name). Computer programs have been created to analyze writings of others who came after Titor, who were suspected of actually being Titor, under a different name, and none have matched up, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that John Titor, after leaving in 2000, has not returned.
    The above paragraph demonstrates a truth of human behavior that can not be ignored: 1) Most people who enjoy attention, will certainly return again, for more attention at a later date. 2) John Titor obviously enjoyed the attention he received online, yet, he never returned. This is another point in his favor of being authentic.
    Titor mentioned some mumbo-jumbo about singularity engines, the Earth's rotation, creating a new universe, the time machine remaining 'still' while the Earth 'moves', etc. First, there is no such thing as "still", or "without motion", because, it is a well-known scientific fact that there can be no absolute definition of "lack of motion", as we can only measure movement as an item is relative to another item. The question, if he is correct, would be: "What is your reference point for absolute zero motion?" Of course, there is no point in space that is set up as a point that is not moving. There can be no way to say any object in space is 'standing still'. All his hokum concerning this topic is another strike against him.
  3. Now for the truth about 'time travel'. 1) The title is misleading, as no one is 'travelling through time' since 'time' is nothing more than a measurement of rates of change. This rate varies depending on what the subject being measured is, how the measurement is perceived by a conscious mind, or, 'the observer'. 2) "Time travel" is more correctly defined as a specific type of alteration of two factors; a] the perceived universe, that is, a highly complex observation construct present in the human brain, and b] the assumed 'real, or physical' universe. Now, one can not exist without the other, in that an unconscious state can produce no perceptions of anything, and therefore time-travel is impossible. Therefore the human mind is the first requirement, otherwise, nothing occurs, since no awareness = nothing {a lack of all data and energy}.
    So therefore, many theories exist to explain 'how' time travel actually occurs, but the most accepted theory involves a type of 'communal consciousness' combined with various outside influences, such as naturally-occuring magnetic vortices (produced naturally by the interaction of the solar wind acting upon the Earth's magnetic field), specific types of quantum states, including the newly-discovered (as of late 2012) quantum spin liquid or QSL, and of course the conscious perceptions of an individual observer. Further, a complete unification theory is mandatory (not available in 2012). So, assembling all of the necessary parts in such a fashion as to achieve a successful 'event', or 'time travel scenario', that, mind you, must include the safe return of the test subject, is a very complex and highly-technical process. Certainly, such a thing is impossible in 2012, as it is known that in your era, no unification theory yet exists, at least not in any type of workable format. A complete understanding of the integrated relationships of universal fractal geometry and the golden ratio must also be included. As of late 2012, there exists no such understanding of any of the above as they exist in a beautifully-integrated system. Lacking any of what I have previously mentioned, no 'time travel' can happen.
  4. Darby Well-Known Member

    What “physics discoveries” did he correctly predict? He said that CERN would discover some particles. He didn’t state what those particles would be. Of course CERN via the LHC has discovered some new, Standard Model predicted, particles. That’s the entire point of the LHC.

    And how can he be currently “correct” about “upcoming physics discoveries?” They are, well, upcoming, i.e. not yet discovered.

    The entire sentence is logically flawed. It might be correct but the sentence does not support the assertion. It’s gibberish at best.

    Argumentative and unsubstantiated opinion. It has nothing to do with what he wrote.

    Same as above.

    BTW, I did do an analysis on Titor’s writing style (stylometry). All it did was eliminate other writers. He only wrote ~3,000 words in all of his own posts so the database is far too small to do a real writing style analysis. I didn’t count the posts that Pamela made for him by re-posting what she said were his emails to her. We had no way of validating her assertion that the writing was his.
  5. Darby Well-Known Member

    How can the term be misleading because "time is nothing more than a measurement of a rate of change?"

    A derivitive is the rate of change. Time is the independant variable. The solution for the function changes with respect to both the change in time and the dependent variable, i.e. dx/dt - change of location per unit of change of time. Time alone does not "measure the rate of change".

    State your overwhelming number of generally accepted sources for this assertion (acceptance on Twitter, Facebook and/or pop-sci/alt-sci forums is not sufficient). References to their peer reviewed papers and articles would be nice. Elsewise it's just another unsupported opinion.
  6. Gain_2 Guest


    As likely we said, there's something suspicious but we can think as a possibility. I shouldn't post there, because by doing that it seems very strange and I may don't disrupt everything possible strange behavior.. Also when somewhat feels strange what usually you do is to think or follow thinking about it. If you have a good knowledge in Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and exclusively in Gravity then you'll know why it does really matter, besides that I'm going to tell something interesting in the end, we have talked about Time Travel, many things and Paradoxes.

    Paradox aren't really common, frankly these shouldn't happen because of the constantly changing of time.. directly exemplifying it is already incessant and without non-stop. Although is derivable the chance that two things can differ each other a good example is if there were another you where he would be?

    Mainly in a different country in this case the another you would be living in a entirely distinctive life. Going to the point this is only to refer that events are happening I'm just regaining somehow myself to see a distinct world

    Only time will tell if we are wrong but as I said is procrastinate.
  7. Skarpz Member

    From my own belief he knows the future but tells us through fiction and we have to weed out what is true and what is made up. That is just my opinion that he is real.
  8. Amusing, Mr. Darby, your criticisms are duly noted. I believe, after reading your review, that I am not communicating in the proper manner, although I am well-trained in vintage English, I think my intentions were lost in the posting, due to a possible lack of complete understanding of your style of communication. I apologize for not being more clear. However, my sources of information are sound, and I shall not explain further, as any listings of scientific data sources do not yet exist in 2012. You may do as you wish with those pronouncements.
    I do admit, however, that I was trying to 'fit-in' with the era of the John Titor ideals, in such a way as to appear to be a fellow comrade 2012. It would appear my musings have failed. Therefore, I shall make no more mention of John Titor (I can find no historical information concerning him or his supposed accomplishments in the field). I am certain he was a hoax, as no such technology existed in 2036, as practical unification theories did not exist until 2234, and productive experiments did not take place until 2252, nearly 20 years later, so therefore, I can assure you Titor is a fantasy situation.
    I am exceptionally fortunate to be involved in a project such as this.. Your ideas, opinions, beliefs, are irrelevant, as this project is concerned mainly with information transfer, and we have succeeded, as you have read these words and perceived an awareness of such (whether you perceive them as true or false is not the issue).
    1885 is very near the limit of our working projects. It has been proposed that this type of experimentation may be shaped as a dough nut (toras), being void in the central region, expanding to a maximum radius within the toral region, then dissipating to a defined boundary region. I believe this theory has some strength, but it is unproven as of yet. It does make some sense, however, since our range is certainly limited: 1) 1885 is the deepest penetration that included valid information transfers. 2) 1910 project produced higher stability, 3) 1940 project produced exceptionally high stability, and included the most durative experience combined with retrievable artifacts, 4) 2012 project has products huge volumes of data, observed II, and interactive phase III components (that is, direct interaction resulting in valid information transfer between conscious beings), 5) projects closer to the 'present' produce similar results to those experienced near the other boundary (1885), for reasons not yet understood (refer back to the 'torus' model). Our work is still quite young, the first successful test projects began in 2259, with limited and/or conversely ambiguous results.
    Examine the photograph I have put to the icon avatar above my nameplate. Analyze it to your convenience. This photo is a digitally-achieved information set that contains no quantum photon phasing disruptions. Note the clear and well-0rganized photon arrangement. This photographic image was collected digitally during the 1885 project at a hotel in Connecticut, April 18, 1885. If you are well-versed in weather conditions, and can achieve knowledge of that day in Hartford, you will find the day to be sunny and pleasant, as indicated by the light from the window.
    I can post a photo that does contain quantum photo phasing disruptions if you would like to view them.
    Good day,

  9. RainmanTime Administrator


    <Big, fat, friggin yawn!>

    My personal theories of psychology (Darby can chime in and let me know where I am wrong) are that there are two reasons people (like yourself) pretend to be something they are not on public forums:

    1) They fancy themselves budding fiction writers and therefore wish to see how many people they can engage in their fantasies, thereby that number of people being some sort of indicator how "good" their skills are at writing convincing prose.
    2) They are just desperate for attention, so they want people to look at them as they would like to see themselves.

    But those are just my theories. Regardless of my thoughts, it seems to me like you are in the process of hijacking this thread, as you most certainly did not respond to any of Darby's challenges to your claims. No, instead you went on your fantasy binge with a bunch of claptrap (unverified science with a lot of "quantum" thrown in for good measure) no doubt intended to steer the attention to...(surprise)...YOU.

    So, I suggest you choose your next post carefully so as to not further take this thread off the original topic. If you are making a TT claim, feel free to start your own thread in that forum. If you are just writing fiction, feel free to start a thread in that forum. But please do not attempt to hijack threads just to focus attention on yourself and your story.

    AuditorMaterial likes this.
  10. RainmanTime Administrator


    The following is a rhetorical question intended to help you (and other readers) understand where your expression of science is lacking and in need of a touch up:

    "Why do you feel it is necessary to use the redundant terms 'quantum' and 'photon' in your fantasy measurement?" You see, by the very definition of a photon, we understand and accept that the photon is a quanta of light (or more generally electromagnetic radiation). So using the term "quantum photon" is a tactic of the department of redundancy department. It is not necessary, and someone who truly understands science would not make this error. A photon is quantized by its very definition.

  11. servantx Active Member

    Do you mean the person who teaches this course?

    Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality

  12. servantx Active Member

    About the course:

    Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality

  13. Darby Well-Known Member

    What new discovery?
  14. Darby Well-Known Member


    Check the user reviews of his course. Very "mixed" with only 52% giving positive reviews. The bad reviews are very negative. The negative reviews say it is a rushed product, boring, disorganized, lots of hand-waving, poorly defined terms, etc.

    The course price has dropped from $250 to $70 - and I'm assuming because the course is not being well received.

    If someone wants to do some personal study they should try iTunes U. The lectures are free. Leonard Susskind's lectures are very good. You need some basic physics background and it helps to have a grip on basic algebra and high school calculus but it isn't absolutely necessary. He spends time going over the math at the beginning of each course. The courses are extended (Stanford) university level (advanced "adult ed"). He's a leading string theorist.
  15. Jean Blanchette New Member

    Well,to put it plan and simple.JT is a fake.However if you read his statements you'll find within that practical joke is a lesson people have been ignoring.He got what he wanted,public notice all over the globe pushing the same thing for any to see.The world is all screwed up, we rely on money to keep people in chains.Whom ever owns the money , owns the people.He talks of wars and computer issues.He gets the most intelligent to either try his theory or prove him wrong, hence setting up a mass think tank.Productive or not , lot's of people jumped on board.Doesn't mean he was right in any event.

    However from a psychological point of view.Extremely brilliant . So my theory is, he was doing an analysis.A joke / thesis for a study on reaction,The yes and no concepts.Hell I bet it took him years to come up with the concept.He had his own theories in time travel that seemed possible but not exact.He had concerns of the planets state of affairs,and he wanted to exploit the gullible.The props he came up with took a long time to make,no way he slapped them together over night.None the less,very well done.Gives added effect to his claims.

    Well done to the guy who plays JT.He might not of intended for some positive results from this stuff, for all we know,he was a dumb kid who watched too much Star Trek and has a craving for attention, or a psychological genius doing a thesis.
    But not a time traveler .
  16. Einstein Well-Known Member


    I just finished watching the series called the Mechanical Universe. 52 episodes at a half hour each. At one a day, it took me a couple of months to watch them all. It's an okay course with more emphasis on history. Much of the math was very different from when I took physics in high school. The calculus operations are being done backwards from the way I was taught. I still haven't found anyone else that has noticed this. And I don't quite understand why just yet.

    But they now teach the right hand rule for the direction of a magnetic field and current in a wire. Which also is backwards from the way I was taught. I've done a search on this rule and have found great confusion amongst students and instructors on this subject.

    It's like there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the knowledge base we are all taught from. Why? Who has the most to gain from educating the masses with faulty knowledge?

    I'm going to give some time to Susskind's lectures to see and compare notes.

    Here is a link to The Mechanical Universe episodes for United States viewers:

    Resource: The Mechanical Universe...and Beyond
  17. Mylo.X. Active Member

    "Well done to the guy who plays JT.He might not of intended for some positive results from this stuff, for all we know,he was a dumb kid who watched too much Star Trek and has a craving for attention, or a psychological genius doing a thesis.
    But not a time traveler."

    "He" could well have been a "She".... ;)
  18. Darby Well-Known Member

    I'm going to assume that the confusion lies with the instructor, most likely at the high school science level, where the teacher's undergraduate major was education rather than physicsl science and/or math.

    The right hand rule tells you the direction of the magnetic field (the wrap of the fingers around the conductor - X axis) and the direction of the positive charge along the conductor (the direction of the thumb - Y axis). It's a 3D model so the index finger points out along the Z axis toward you and indicates the direction of the force. The confusion is probably because the instructor fails to clearly indicate the the thumb is for the positive charge only. If the teacher actually understood the math then s/he would instantly realize that it (RHR) is a simplification of a 3-vector coordinate system being described by a handy rule of thumb (double pun intended :) ). You've got two more fingers so you could make up a right hand rule for 5 dimensions if your other fingers could penetrate the 4th and 5th dimensions of your model. And it would be a valid model so long as you clearly defined the axes and was always consistent in applying it.

    BTW: Some materials exhibit opposite actions to an EM field. That's advanced E&M where the chirality (KEER-ality "handedness") of the specific material must be considered and is described by a similar left hand rule. That part of E&M isn't normally a part of high school or lower division physics for non-physics majors. If an instructor is tossing that in as part of a survey physics course it is absolutely assured that a large portion of the students would come away confused.

    An example of chirality is its effect is on sugar. Sugar comes in 2 general forms: dextro-glucose (right handed sugar) and levo-glucose (left handed sugar). Chemically they assay to be precisely the same thing. Structurally their molecules are mirror images of each other. Eat D-glucose and your body converts it to ready energy. Eat L-glucose and you get nothing. Our cells cannot metabolize L-glucose.
  19. Darby Well-Known Member

    It's OK that you responded to Einstein's question but you didn't respond to my question to you: What new discovery by Gates were you referring to?

    I checked his most recent papers on ArXiv and there were three submitted earlier this month with his name on them. Two, however, are not endorsed by him. Only four reasons for that: 1) He is not a member of ArXiv thus he cannot endorse, 2) His name ws misspelled or it was not not recognized, 3) Did not claim authorship(s) or 4) Did not claim ownership of the paper(s).

    1 and 2 are not applicable. He is a member of ArXiv and has endorsed papers filed. His name is spelled correctly and matches his endorsed papers. So it is either 3 or 4 or both. He didn't claim authorship and/or ownership of the papers.

    So I ask again: what discovery(s) has he made that will lead to time travel?

    As far as the courses go they have nothing to do with "new discoveries". They are simply a set of courses designed to give an overview of quantum mechanics. That much can be told by the section titles.

    I'm not suggesting that he isn't a brilliant physicist. From all accounts he is. But not all PhD's in physics are brilliant teachers. Many aren't. Some don't even teach in the classroom except to direct PhD candidates. A few are also brilliant teachers as well as brilliant scientists. Leonard Susskind (Stanford) is and Richard Feynmann (Cal Tech) was. Based on the reviews of his "The Great Courses" class he isn't. The bad reviews don't indicate a simple misunderstanding of a "brilliant professor." They indicate that the classes appear to have been put together without much thought, organization or regard for the consumer. A hack job as it were and, based on the original cost of $250.00, an expensive one to boot.
  20. servantx Active Member

    Please notice that the member profile of "onesix" along with his/her 12 posts no longer exist in the forum.

    Rainmantime, did someone manual deleted it all or other errors from the TTI database? Some quantum tech/physics information from her posts are invaluable.

Share This Page