Was John TItor Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
dAdvocate,

Anyway, to the non-believers:
You disprove most of his evidence sent in. Is there a possibility that the real John Titor did not send those in?

You weren't very specific here but it's still an interesting question that's been referenced before.

Sure - it is possible that the person in 2000-2001 known here as TimeTravel_0 and the person known as John Titor on Art Bell's old Post-2-Post forum were not the same person and that the person who sent the two faxes to Art in 1998 was yet another person. Neither this site nor Bell's site publicly displayed the IP address of posters to the members. And there's the further complication that many of "Titor's" posts were actually made by Pamela Moore who stated that she was copy/pasting from emails sent to her by Titor/TTO.

But I don't believe that you'll find very many believers or non-believers who accept the alternative that they weren't all one person (or members of what is known as Group Titor). The evidence is pretty clear that only one person was the "voice" of Titor/TTO even if it was a group of people who provided the totality of the creative work.

That doesn't mean that Titor/TTO didn't have more than one online personality. Quite some time ago I received very credible (though incomplete) information from an individual who was clearly in a position to know the facts first hand that on at least one site where Titor/TO was posting that he had registered on the site under another handle long before Titor/TTO started posting. Titor/TTO was using a proxy service to log onto his favorite sites. But once in a while he apparently forgot to proxy in and his real IP was registered in the site logs.

This is one of the fallacious arguments posed by would-be TT's. That they use proxy services like The Cloak to log in so that they can protect themselves from the Big Bad Govmit. There is no protection. All this accomplishes is to mask their actual IP from you, me and the SysOp. If someone is using the Internet for a purpose that is deemed to be illegal or a threat to national security the govmit can use tools that aren't generally available to you or me and they can, given sufficient time and log ins, trace the person to a real IP no matter what proxy they are using. Moreover, at least four people in addition to Pamela Moore have access to Titor/TTO's actual IP. Those four people are Art Bell, Keith & Mary Rowland (the SysOps for Post-2-Post), Raul Burriel (the owner of this site). Titor used a commercial ISP for his regular email ([email protected]). AOL obviously knows who held that account and has either credit card or checking account information, address and phone number, social security number and credit check information for the account holder. Art Bell has the phone number and addres of the person who sent in the original faxes in 1998. They were included in the faxes. He didn't read them on the air. The fax log also contained the calling phone number (it's my understanding that if you faxed Art but had Caller ID Block turned on he would not accept the faxes). Remember that at the time that the faxes were received Art was receiving death threats to both himself and his (now deceased) wife. It was because of those threats that he "retired" in 1998 and missed reading the faxes the first time that Titor faxed him. When he came back from retirement he took precautions to assure his family's safety. Anonymous faxes weren't part of his security plan.

The "It's for my protection that I use a proxy" dodge is used only to keep you from discovering what other handle the would-be TT is using on the site.

To the believers:
How many of you actually did give him an email to send to you in an earlier year?
How many of you actually noticed differences?

I'm not a believer but I was posting when Titor/TTO was posting. I also took over as the moderator of the forum that used to be Art Bell's time travel forum on Post-2-Post (we moved the discussion to Anomalies.net when Bell closed down P2P). The participants in the email experiment were all members of Anomalies at one time.

To my knowlwdge only two participants ever weighed in online. According to Pamela Moore others communicated with her via email but didn't want to post their thoughts.

FloridaJim was one participant. He said that some buildings that he didn't recall suddenly appeared in his neighborhood. He also said that the Burger King logo changed without his noticing it before.

Pamela said that she experienced strange dejavu's. She said that the other people who communicated with her privately also said that they experienced strange effects.

The problem here is that they experienced the "strange events" in 2001 - three years after they would have received the emails in 1998. The other peroblem is that they decided to believe what they wanted to believe rather than believe what Titor/TTO told them would be the case. He was very specific. He said that the email experiment would have no effect on them and that it would only affect people in some alternate universe.

Generally:
Any part of his story could be true, and any part could be false. Regarding his predictions of a 'civil war' -and any other time traveler referencing this- could his definition of a civil war be different from ours? Possibly.

Sure - it's possible. But the "evidence" provided by Titor/TTO argues against that theory. Its not as if Titor is from the deep distant future. He's a comtemporary person who would be alive and well in Florida (or Utah if you believe Mom Titor's book) today. He also said that his undergraduate degree is in contemporary US history. There's no reason to believe, after reading all of his posts, that his definition of "civil war" in America is any different than what you or I accept as the general definition.

But...

Because there was no civil war in 2004 or 2005, as stated by Titor/TTO on two different sites, there are some people who would like to redefine "civil war". This goes back as far as 2003-2004 when some old hands declared that a civil war in virtually any country on the planet fit the bill. Specifically, some people have tried to define a US civil war as to include a civil war in Iraq.

On the other hand Titor/TTO said that the civil war in the US would be very apparent to everyone by 2008. That's just one year from now. Remember, he didn't say that the civil war starts in 2008. He said it started in 2004 or 2005 and by 2008 even the deaf, dumb and blind would be in the middle of it such that they can't deny that it is going on.

At this point in time do you hear of bands of masked revolutionaries roaming the streets of your community at night assassinating police officers, school teachers, government officials, bombing government buildings, etc? And have you seen any of his precursors to the revolution (Weekly Wacky Waco Indicents occuring at an increasing rate until they will become a weekly event in the US by 2008) - have you seen just one Waco indicent such that you don't have to redefine the meaning to fit any incident that you want to fit the description?

In 2002, 2003 and 2004 I asked members of my forum to define what a Waco incident is so that we have an agreed upon criteria against which we could test different incidents. Not a single believer was willing to define what such an incident entails even though the details of the Black Panther's Shoot-out, SLA Shoot-out, Waco and Ruby Ridge are readily available online.
 
Darby,

Because there was no civil war in 2004 or 2005, as stated by Titor/TTO on two different sites, there are some people who would like to redefine "civil war". This goes back as far as 2003-2004 when some old hands declared that a civil war in virtually any country on the planet fit the bill. Specifically, some people have tried to define a US civil war as to include a civil war in Iraq.

...And have you seen any of his precursors to the revolution (Weekly Wacky Waco Indicents occuring at an increasing rate until they will become a weekly event in the US by 2008) - have you seen just one Waco indicent such that you don't have to redefine the meaning to fit any incident that you want to fit the description?

In 2002, 2003 and 2004 I asked members of my forum to define what a Waco incident is so that we have an agreed upon criteria against which we could test different incidents. Not a single believer was willing to define what such an incident entails even though the details of the Black Panther's Shoot-out, SLA Shoot-out, Waco and Ruby Ridge are readily available online.

Thank you for your reply. I still am fairly new to this subject and your information has been very useful. Regarding your last few paragraphs, I have some things to say.


According to my copy of the dictionary, a civil war is 'a war between political factions or regions within the same country.' It could be argued that Iraq's events should be included in the civil war. You can say that Iraq is definitely not our country, and I would agree, but there's also the fact that we invaded that country in 2003.

The term invasion includes entering a territy to conquer or plunder. Since we obviously aren't taking their houses and possessions for our own, it can only be shown as a means of us taking over. I'm not just placing the word invasion on it, but that's how it is nationally referred to.

So if that's the case, we're there taking the land for our own; that makes Iraq part of our country, right? You can completely shoot down my case, but I'll finish since I feel like I'm on a roll.

A civil war is between factions in the same country. Iraq would be included. After all, we (as in the US) basically created a government there to keep Iraq in order. A faction can be defined as a group within a larger government. So basically it plays out as:

US Gov on America Soil vs. US Gov on Iraqi Soil.



As for your question on how we would define a Waco event, I think I might have an answer. Based on all the events you stated, I can say that a Waco event would be an encounter between the US Government along with its forces and any group of people who's ideas contradict theirs. The encounter also involves weapons with the intent to defeat the other side.

Taking all that I've stated above into account, we do see Waco events weekly, even daily. The troops that Bush has sent over versus the people in Iraq who don't want them there. This could possibly escalate into weekly Waco events in the US due to so many casualties.

There's always been people who support Bush, and people who do not. By the time 2008 rolls around (which isn't too far away) families of military members and anti-Bush citizens could start starting riots and confronting Bush and his government using guns.


But, as I said, this all relies on if you're willing to accept the way I defined things. At this point, I'm not willing to put myself on a certain side. I'm open to both the possibility and the impossibility of Titor truly being a time traveler.



I look forward to your reply.
 
dAdvocate,

A civil war is between factions in the same country. Iraq would be included. After all, we (as in the US) basically created a government there to keep Iraq in order. A faction can be defined as a group within a larger government. So basically it plays out as:

US Gov on America Soil vs. US Gov on Iraqi Soil.

But by that simplistic definition of civil war, "a conflict between differing factions within the same country", we could also include the war between the Hell's Angels and Outlaws in Toronto and Detroit in the 1990's as a civil war in both Canada and the USA. They are two factions in the same country with conflicting interests who engaged in truly violent armed combat. Several hundred of their "cadres" were killed. You accept this as a "civil war"?

Hitler invaded France on 10-May-1940. When France was defeated a few weeks later Germany installed a Nazi government in Vichy. Was the remainder of World War II in France a "civil war" or a war of liberation? Was the Battle of Britain and the Allied invasion of France in June 1944 simply extensions of a civil war in France? It fits your definition.

In any case, Titor was pretty specific about what he meant by "civil war" in the USA. He said that it was an armed conflict carried out by revolutionary cadres against the government of the USA. In his case, in Florida. When it turned into an international conflict he said that it was WWIII.

As for your question on how we would define a Waco event, I think I might have an answer.

Based on all the events you stated, I can say that a Waco event would be an encounter between the US Government along with its forces and any group of people who's ideas contradict theirs. The encounter also involves weapons with the intent to defeat the other side.

But doesn't that definition also include your definition of "civil war"?

If you define a Waco incident as "an encounter between the US Government along with its forces and any group of people who's ideas contradict theirs" wouldn't that also include serving a search warrant on the Mafia by the FBI? The Cosa Nostra's ideas certainly are in conflict with the US Attorney's ideas (not to mention the law), they have engaged in armed conflict with law enforcement and the FBI is cetainly among the "forces" of the US government.

The four incidents that I alluded to in my previous post all have very specific elements in common:

1. Each faction had a political and/or religious position that was classified by the general public as being on the "fringe";

2. Each faction took position wherein they stated they had a grievance with the government over which they were prepared to take violent action against the government (the specific reasons differed in each case);

3. Each faction armed themselves to an extent far beyond what would be classified as "ordinary" by the general public;

4. Each faction ultimately came into legal conflict with local, state and/or federal law enforcement;

5. Each faction ultimately took possession of a building, holed up and faced off with law enforcement;

6. Each incident ended with a shoot-out;

7. Each faction was led by a single charismatic male who was the sole arbitor of the faction's political or religious policy, internal security and discipline.

8. Each faction's cadres were classified as Level 9-10 on the urban warfare commitment model (Level 9-10, willing to die and/or kill for the cause.)

Taking all that I've stated above into account, we do see Waco events weekly, even daily. The troops that Bush has sent over versus the people in Iraq who don't want them there. This could possibly escalate into weekly Waco events in the US due to so many casualties.

I won't disagree that for whatever reason there is the possibility that we could see Weekly Wacky Waco indicents at some point in the future. But that was not the prediction. The prediction was that we would see them over an extended period of time starting sometime after the 2004 elections and that the frequency of the events would increase to becoming a weekly occurrence by 2008 by which time the US would be in the middle of a full scale domestic civil war.

The whole idea of "modelling" is to define a set of criteria so that you can ultimately make predictions, recognize specific outcomes and discriminate between false positives and actual predicted outcomes.

In your case you've defined both "civil war" and "Waco Incident" so loosely that you end up taking virtually any outcome as a "hit". Gilding the Lilly isn't very useful if you actually want to determine whether or not Titor's view of reality matches actual outcomes. And that's the real drill, isn't it? We're not actually trying to determine whether your political and/or historical POV is correct. We're trying to determine whether Titor's POV was correct. Loosening up his stated criteria isn't going to accomplish the latter.
 
Darby,

Okay, I understand what you're saying. That's true that loosening it up won't help. I'm just trying to throw some possibilites out there. Obviously, I'm not familiar with a load of events since I'm only a high school freshmen, but I appreciate the information.

A lot of people have their minds made up on this subject anyway. I know I'll probably never find something solid to support the possibility at the moment, but that's where school comes in handy.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
dAdvocate,

High school freshman? Let me let you in on a clue. I've spent most of my adult life working with college grads. If they as a group could write as well as you have written your few posts here I might have avoided quipping, "Hmmm.... Mom and dad sent you to college. You graduated and the only thing that you seem to be able to do with the diploma is to use it as the filling in a sandwich."


You write well. I honestly would have guessed you age to be a bit older (by several years) based on your writing skills.

Have fun with the boards here.
 
Thank you very much. I've read a lot of your posts here and I think highly of your opinion. Your compliment means very much to me.

And I shall have fun. Unfortunately, I haven't broken out of the TT section yet, but maybe I'll change that before the month is over. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Top