It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

page: 150
31
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
That's called suicide, not civil unrest


You obviously don't know what the word "civil unrest" means....
Which is kinda sad...

The 2006 elections didn't prove anything.

? Only the titorites are using the word "waco style"
Not sure what your point is?

TITOR said waco type. There's hasn't been one yet.


Read the quote again.
Then read what I said.

Also read what you said, you just proved yourself wrong. No where does Titor say that people won't realize there's a civil war until 2008.
By 2008 it will have spread across the country so of course they'll know it's going on.

You have evidence of what?


WOW you have got to be the stupidest person ive met in almost 15 yrs. plz take that as an insult.


the man committed suicide with the explicit intent of symbolizing his resentment of the administrations policies ie. the war

heres how i define civil unrest... (i cant believe i have to do this)


CIVIL

1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law. Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.

UNREST

1. An uneasy or troubled condition: social unrest.

UNEASY

1. Lacking a sense of security; anxious or apprehensive: The farmers were uneasy until it finally rained.
2. Affording no ease or reassurance: an uneasy calm.
3. a. Awkward or unsure in manner; constrained: uneasy with strangers.
b. Causing constraint or awkwardness: an uneasy silence.
4. Not conducive to rest: fell into a fitful, uneasy sleep.


Hopefully you are now educated!!*crosses fingers*

the reason ppl point out "style verses type" is, repetitiously ppl use TYPE as if it meant STYLE

YES you are one of those ppl (need proof.. ok)


TYPE

1. A number of people or things having in common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as a group or class.
2. The general character or structure held in common by a number of people or things considered as a group or class.
3. A person or thing having the features of a group or class.

STYLE ie method

1. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.
2. The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.



Waco type events are happening every where, these TYPE of event have been happening to minorities for the last few centuries.

Roth has stated a few
Vitchilo has stated a few
Xphiles has stated a few

my post continues....




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
we could argue this till the civil war comes and goes....


Q:You say the civil war lasts from 2004 to 2008 and then the short big war in 2015. What do the years from 2008 to 2015 look like? How long does WWIII last.

JOHN:I'm not sure I said that exactly. By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.

how do i say this....when titor corrects this question , *it could be understood*. that the civilwar doesnt end in 2008, but it really is just beginning. you may ask why did he say 2004 was the start of the civilwar instead of 2008 if the war "really" started in 2008.

maybe becuase even tho it reaches nearly everyones doorstep by 2008 it all began in 2004. and at no time does titor say everyone will no about the comin war, he says that most ppl will have time to decide what they will do.


Q: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer locations.
JOHN:Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.




You have evidence of what?

like i said- regardless if you call it fraud. if you really want to see our evidence i suggest going back 10-20 pages and actually read our posts.


im not goin to comment further on the 2006 olympics... it wont help you nor help me in this discussion. tho im sure OUR LEADERS did consider it.



Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.



[edit on 8-12-2006 by Glyph_D]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Vitchilo those are some good reads thx

when i read the 2nd amend. i almost lost it. im glad 1 of the judges didnt agree.

i cant see how the Dems could send more troops, without reinstating the draft.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Glyph_D]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Look if i was a time traveler and want to really make a big splash and impress everyone I would give exact times and dates, not this vague BS that can be interpeted as many different things and timeline.

If I were a time traveler I wouldn't be vague about anything I would just tell everyone exactly what I saw. Some people say well Titor can't do that because it will effect this of that. I say BS! he interfered by talking period so why not hear the entire future exactly how it will play out instead of the ambiguity.

The reason Titor is ambigious is because he is a liar or a person with a great imagination.

I got to give him one thing people are follow his word like the bible. Scary! maybe that is how the Bible thing got going as well.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I was just wondering about the ``armed group entering in conflicts`` thing. How could that happen?

First, to have armed group entering in conflict, you need the government to go after a group who is armed. Who would be armed? Militias.

Guns only to militias?

And if it was about erasing racial problems... what about muslims, who are seen as a ``threat`` and even CNN calls for their internment in camps.

Host Glenn Beck threatens Muslims with concentration camps
Melanie Morgan: Muslims Guilty Until Proven Innocent
WW2 camps restauration
Pentagon Civilian Inmate Labor Program
After all, there's more than 325.000 names on the terrorist list
After all, this radio show showed how the population is brainwashed into hating muslims
After all, Roosvelt did the same thing during WW2, interning japaneses
After all, the posse comitatus is abolished so Bush can use the army to do the police anywhere

So my bet is that the government will go after muslim to put them in camps, and then muslims will fight with arms, then the government will try to take arms and arrest anyone against them without any form of trial, then the militias will enter the conflict.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Glyph_D, this garbage has no place in a discussion amongst adults. I swear, you've got to be my polar opposite.


WOW you have got to be the stupidest person ive met in almost 15 yrs. plz take that as an insult.

the man committed suicide with the explicit intent of symbolizing his resentment of the administrations policies ie. the war

heres how i define civil unrest... (i cant believe i have to do this)


BTW, self immolation would be civil disobedience, not unrest.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Ugh! I thought it went through. I posted a reply I guess just as the board shut down for maintenence


Originally posted by Glyph_D
WOW you have got to be the stupidest person ive met in almost 15 yrs. plz take that as an insult.

I read the rest of your post and you never explained this.
Stupid because of what? Because I asked simple questions that you couldn't answer?
All the comments I have made are backed by facts. I encourage you to research every statement I've made so you can verify for yourself.

So you're 15 years old huh?
Yeah I knew you were still young (grammar kind of gave it away too). You have a lot to learn buddy....


heres how i define civil unrest... (i cant believe i have to do this)


CIVIL

1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law. Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.

UNREST

1. An uneasy or troubled condition: social unrest.

UNEASY

1. Lacking a sense of security; anxious or apprehensive: The farmers were uneasy until it finally rained.
2. Affording no ease or reassurance: an uneasy calm.
3. a. Awkward or unsure in manner; constrained: uneasy with strangers.
b. Causing constraint or awkwardness: an uneasy silence.
4. Not conducive to rest: fell into a fitful, uneasy sleep.


Hopefully you are now educated!!*crosses fingers*

lol
Is that how you define words? lol
Ok then, so then by your way of defining words is there a Civil War going on right now. Titor specifically stated that the Civil War would begin in 2004.

Again though, it doesn't even matter how you define things. You're still young and learning...
What's going on in Iraq that's civil unrest
What's close to happening in Lebanon that's civil unrest
The U.S. during the 60s....that was civil unrest
This is how the world defines the word.


the reason ppl point out "style verses type" is, repetitiously ppl use TYPE as if it meant STYLE

YES you are one of those ppl (need proof.. ok)


TYPE

1. A number of people or things having in common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as a group or class.
2. The general character or structure held in common by a number of people or things considered as a group or class.
3. A person or thing having the features of a group or class.

Titor stated that there would be monthly waco type events that steadily get worse.
So according to Titor and your definition, every month for the past 2 (3 in a couple weeks) years there should have been progressively worse events that have common traits or characteristics as Waco (def. 1), and have the same features as Waco (def. 3).
I've said this before, if the war was supposed to start out with anything less than events like Waco, Titor would have stated so. Waco is the benchmark. That would make sense anyway, anything less than Waco wouldn't start a Civil War in a 3rd world country let alone the U.S.!



Roth has stated a few
Vitchilo has stated a few
Xphiles has stated a few...

Where?
The closest you all came was with Katrina, but that was until we found out most of the stuff that was being reported was false.


how do i say this....when titor corrects this question , *it could be understood*. that the civilwar doesnt end in 2008, but it really is just beginning. you may ask why did he say 2004 was the start of the civilwar instead of 2008 if the war "really" started in 2008.

maybe becuase even tho it reaches nearly everyones doorstep by 2008 it all began in 2004. and at no time does titor say everyone will no about the comin war, he says that most ppl will have time to decide what they will do.

1. He doesn't really correct the question. He just states, that's not what he said. Titor stated previously that the war would be from 2004 to 2015, the person who asked the questions mistakenly thought Titor said the war would be just 4 years then there'd be a break at 2008. Titor is saying that he didn't say that and that by 2008 the war would be on everyone's doorstep. That would make sense for a country the size of the U.S. that it would take that long to spread.

2. This is the U.S. we're talking about here. There's no way you can hide a civil war in a third world country so what makes you think people in a nation which is in the middle of an information age wouldn't know a civil war (as defined by Titor and the world) is not going on??? That doesn't make sense at all.


like i said- regardless if you call it fraud. if you really want to see our evidence i suggest going back 10-20 pages and actually read our posts.

No no no
I'm asking you what do you have evidence of?
Do you have evidence time travel is real?
Do you have evidence that Titor is real?
Do you have evidence a civil war is going on?
You didn't say what you were talking about...


i cant see how the Dems could send more troops, without reinstating the draft.

We only have about 130-140,000 troops in Iraq, out of a military of about 1.4 million (not including reserves).
In the first Gulf War we sent 500,000 troops.
There won't be a draft because there's no need for one



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Didn't Titor claim to come from a different time line ? if so then the timing of things could vary and infact change with people being made aware of occurences about to happen in this timeline!



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Does the current relationship between Arabs and Jews have anything to do with the coming war?
Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election. The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause.


Wavering support of Israël eh? Olmert confirm nuclear weapons , this will shrink the Israël support from the Israël supporters and cancel the US financial aid because of their illegal nuclear weapons.

Defensive Israël? Yeah, they can't be offensive against Iran, Iran is too big to be attacked by Israël, and Israël ``defend`` themselves by attacking nuclear installations in Iran, then Iran strikes back, end of the war in the middle-east, end of the part of what's to come...

Another JT paragraph cleared...


And the resistance needs resistants no?

The Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth going viral
The Boston tea party 9/11.... all over the nation... isn't that significant? It's a clear message from the people about how they know about 9/11 and that they would fight for their liberties and get back their country if the need arise. It's bizarre the same thing happenned just before the war of independance against the british... now it would be the war of independance of corporatism.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
lmao Vit
Global politcs just isn't your area of expertise




Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wavering support of Israël eh? Olmert confirm nuclear weapons , this will shrink the Israël support from the Israël supporters and cancel the US financial aid because of their illegal nuclear weapons.

1. This won't shrink a thing. Everyone and their mother knows Isreal has nukes. If they eventually decide to make it public there would be absolutely no surprise to anyone.

2. Why would the US cancel aide??? LMAO!! If Isreal has nukes it's because of the U.S.! Wow, I didn't think you were this clueless....

3. Isreal is not part of any treaties so how can they be illegal?


Defensive Israël? Yeah, they can't be offensive against Iran, Iran is too big to be attacked by Israël, and Israël ``defend`` themselves by attacking nuclear installations in Iran, then Iran strikes back, end of the war in the middle-east, end of the part of what's to come...

This doesn't even make sense.
You say Isreal can't go on the offensive, but then you say they do go on the offensive.
If Isreal were to attack their nuclear installations, you better believe they'd attack Iran's army and their capability to strike back as well. That's call going on the offensive.

That won't happen anyway....



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   


1. This won't shrink a thing. Everyone and their mother knows Isreal has nukes. If they eventually decide to make it public there would be absolutely no surprise to anyone.

There's is a major difference between blur and confirmed nuclear weapons.



2. Why would the US cancel aide??? LMAO!! If Isreal has nukes it's because of the U.S.! Wow, I didn't think you were this clueless....

Well they may not cancel aid but there will be talks about the aid... because giving aid to a country armed with nuclear weapons is against US policies or something like that, even if they do what they want.



3. Isreal is not part of any treaties so how can they be illegal?

So what they aren't part of any treaties? So if Iran withdraw from NPT they can have nuclear weapons and the whole pro-Israël nuts will stop whining?



You say Isreal can't go on the offensive, but then you say they do go on the offensive.
If Isreal were to attack their nuclear installations, you better believe they'd attack Iran's army and their capability to strike back as well. That's call going on the offensive.

I say the medias say the same thing as against the Hezbollah, that Israël is defending themselves against Iran into attacking their nuclear capabilities.


The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense.

Not prepared for a true offensive war: limited airstrikes against Iran.
they are prepared for the ultimate defense: the aegis system, the anti-missile system, they think they are protected of Iranian missiles, that's why they don't fear the possible backslash of Iran.

Then when they see it doesn't work and they get crushed, before being annihilated, they nuke Iran and every arab country who enter the fight(Syria, other):

The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction.




That won't happen anyway....

I hope so, but i'm just making a hypothesis.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
ok firstly the definitions i gave are not mine, but are the definitions of answers.com.if thats not a credible site then sorry.
secondly, the reason i called you stupid is not becuase you refuse to believe in titors claims nor is it becuase you refuse to compromise. the reason i insulted you is becuase you laughed away a man and his attempt to wake the world up, now i dont share this mans resolute but i do admire it. but laughing this away just pisses me off.

the comment about this being a place for adults, i agree. but if somone is going to flame a man for doing a truely courageous act, then hate is all that is needed. (if you disagree so what)

if you want a def for CIVIL WAR go to answers and look up each term individually to get a clearer definition.

but the term together means this

Civil War
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).





Again though, it doesn't even matter how you define things. You're still young and learning...
What's going on in Iraq that's civil unrest
What's close to happening in Lebanon that's civil unrest
The U.S. during the 60s....that was civil unrest
This is how the world defines the word.


well im not 15yrs old but i am still learning(anybody who says there done learning is a fool)

well according to the UN whats goin on in Iraq is civil war

futhermore you have got to loosen your deff of civil unrest, there are different degrees of civil unrest.(you seem to only recognize the extreme points as if it were the transition def to civil war)



i have a question for you/ other than waco what other commonly known event has the same characteristics?
thats why waco was chosen, it was very easily remembered by the masses, and had the right elements to classify as a type that became very common by these dates.



That would make sense for a country the size of the U.S. that it would take that long to spread.
right it would take time to spread, and if you go back a few pages thats what most of us were trying to say.

i dont know why you think the US is a place where nothing can be hidden


but if a civil war started in 2004(minimalistically speaking- in 1 city by one man) do you really think it would be global news?or even local news?


We only have about 130-140,000 troops in Iraq, out of a military of about 1.4 million (not including reserves).
In the first Gulf War we sent 500,000 troops.
There won't be a draft because there's no need for one

well according to many officails if this war(middle east) is to be successful(meaning total victory, working cities, working democracy, no more terrorism, total peace) then we would have to send 2 soldiers for every 1 middle eastern.

we as of right now do not hasve those kind of resources. which is why Bush is going to compromise the goals over there.


i apologized for my grammer once before, i guess ill do it again "Sorry about my bad Engrish" but i read over my posts to make sure they can be understood. i guess i have bad proofreading skills also LOL


EDIT: oh 1 last thing when i claim to know why or what titor was thinking or trying to say, it not not because i know him or even believe him. I myself try to imagine what it would be like to be a timetraveller and explain the future to ppl i dont know.

not from the the ppl point of view but from the travellers point of view, and thats how i approach the titor claims.




[edit on 12-12-2006 by Glyph_D]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
There's is a major difference between blur and confirmed nuclear weapons.

What are you talking about?
Again, Isreal and nuclear weapons is not a secret. The biggest question is how many they have.
There is no "blur"



Well they may not cancel aid but there will be talks about the aid... because giving aid to a country armed with nuclear weapons is against US policies or something like that, even if they do what they want.

There won't be talks about anything.
Against US policy??
lmao
Name one country that has nukes that doesn't recieve U.S. aid (well, besides NK).



So what they aren't part of any treaties? So if Iran withdraw from NPT they can have nuclear weapons and the whole pro-Israël nuts will stop whining?


If they withdrew they wouldn't be bound by any laws. However the world discourages and will try to prevent any new country in obtaining nukes. (note: Isreal has had nukes since the '70s)

How exactly does that make someone a "pro-Israel nut"???



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
Didn't Titor claim to come from a different time line ? if so then the timing of things could vary and infact change with people being made aware of occurences about to happen in this timeline!


I don't remember exactly what he said but he said something to the degree of there being a 2.5% change, or some smaller percentage, between timelines. Now, over a large period of time, YES, 2.5% could change the world in a huge way. However, over, what, 5-6 years 2.5% isn't going to change all that much. According to him, there would be a civil war already, waco type events, yada yada the whole shebang. He failed to mention ANYTHING about 9/11, which has altered our timeline in a 100% different fashion, as well as Iraq. The fact that this thread is still open after like 2 years is astonishing. This thread isn't going to end until 2016 when there is no WWIII, or at least described by Titor, and there was no civil war. How naive must you people truly be?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
JT is all just a BIGGGG hoax... Just watch the movies The Time Machine (1960) and The Time Machine (2002). All of this war stuff is all altered the way he sees it with all the info he searched counting movies. Yes i give him that he knows alot of stuff, but at the same time he might even be a really smart professor or scientist. You know what i think, if he really did come here he would be on one of our computers right? So.. have u ever thought about hacking the computers IP Address he was using to give an insite of where he might of been located. Even that isnt going to prove anything b/c people now days you cant beleive a SINGLE word anyone says (which is a bad thing) I mean this is just my say so on all of this. Then if he did go back (which he didnt) you might still be able to use another way of spoofing IP stuff like i said im just talking away, maybe someone with a more higher english level could translate this into what im trying to say. Im just saying what u could do all in all.

P.S. Please dont make me feel like a total idiot just b/c i said something that dont make sense.

P.S.S. If time travel was possible backward and/or forward in the movie The Time Machine (2002), when he tried to save his girlfriend he cant b/c she would die everytime he came back, just like hesaid 1000 time 1000 different ways. But couldn't he just take her back onto the time machine with him and travel into time? Or then she would be cheating death and if he did get her on and traveled would she just disapear into thin are after they stopped the machine to get off? But then they would have to beat the time of her death fast enough to get onto the machine b4 she dies the exact moment everytime. Also the guy in the park, his dystany (worldline) acually everyones and everything would change but later on in the future get back on what was caused by the woman in the park, but would he of just killed someone else insted of the women at the sametime he pulled the trigger. So basicly in (reality) eveything that his been changed still happends but in different ways but still has the same future, but at the same time it dont b/c of example the guy that would shoot something or someone else depends on who he kills it could be a movie star or rockstar or something, his sentenceing would be changed (depending on how they did that back then) so that would change his future for a short or big period of time (another throw out there question, "Period Of Time" could that be thought around some how?). So basiclly whatever punishment he got for killing the woman in the park would happen to him later in life then he would be right back on his "worldline", or would he?

P.S.S.S. I know alot of this is confusing but try to make out what im trying to say.

-Jager



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
John Titor achieved his goal... or "hidden agenda" as some may call it....

Many of us here know that Pamela, yes a real person, was approached by John Titor to guide him in his task. Yet, no one was ever able to identify Pamela as being part of a so called "hoax." In fact, Pamela was heavily affected by Titor's presence.

The very physical effects, after John left this worldline, were felt not only by Pamela, but many others who were involved in the period of 2000/2001, when John Titor posted his messages online. "Alter Vu's".... you might want to google it.....

What would you do if you indeed would be a real time traveller with all responsibilities you are carrying with you? What would you do?

What would you do if you knew something so disastrous would happen it would forever change the face of this earth? What would you do if afterwards one had found arguments in order to reduce this catastrophe or possibly even prevent it?

What would you do if you would have all the information layed out on the table in front of you? If you knew the "hidden agenda's" of the players behind that war? Or worse, if you knew the "hidden agenda's" of the players, who are playing with YOUR future RIGHT NOW?

Pamela said that John told her he purposely hid what he called "gems" in his postings but he didn't think anyone would find them. Little bits of important info that people would find later....

Well, that information has been found and the cards are on the table... right here right now....

What would you do if you wanted to prepare people? Right, you will wake them up BEFORE the s.h.t.f. That’s what John Titor did…… remember…… here’s a BIG gem:

“The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over."
"By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep."



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Yes, hurry everyone... go out and buy a boat load of bicycle tires!!! A-yep, that 'ill do. Tires, the future is all about bicycle tires. You can sell them to those folks currently involved in Civil War for a huge mark up. Hmm I wonder if Haliburton has lots of Bicycle tires. And don't forget to drink plenty of orange juice. Guess they didnt have any bicycle tires in the Olympics that didnt happen huh. And no Tour d' France either.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I read the part about Idaho here, 18th post and had to think of this thread. Militias in Idaho getting sprayed with some biological agent? Could that relate to this "civil war"?



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Ok I try and keep a open mind about everything.But i have one problem with JT.If I was a time travler from the future and said future was a bad one nuclear war ,cival war etc.I wouldn't just show myself on the internet forums or chatrooms or radio shows( i belive he was mentioned on the art bell show).I would be on national tv!!!Especially if I have the time machine with me.Which is a definite plus when it comes to proof.Plus if my past self was alive be it being a baby.I would bring my baby self on tv to and do a live DNA test along with the time machine and spell out the horrible future to the world.That is just me.I know if he did that the future would be altered but it would be a chance I would be willing to take to make the future better and not give cryptic clues in forums.

Ok some one might be able to help me here.Did he ever say the New Orleans would almost get wiped out by a hurricane?What about the shuttle Columbia diaster?Did he say anything about future events back in 2000/2001 that we can look up and say with out a doubt yes he got that right.

Just me if i am go back into the past I would bring with me proof of events that are yet to happen in the past so that the people in the present would trust me,and not give the 2.5 %world dirvergent timeline crap.Thats just a cop out to give generalizations and pass them off as proof.

So in conclusion we all want proof be it in aliens ,underground bases,religon etc but mostly never find it.He had the proof and evidence with him(time machine etc ) and didn't use it to validate himself.So i smell a hoax here.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
yes many psychics, scifi authors, and timetravellers claim a dystopian future. but that alone doesnt prove fraud.




If time travel was possible backward and/or forward in the movie The Time Machine...


well that story was not to teach you about the laws of time but rather to teach you to "move on and not wollow in the past"

asumming titor is real(becuase he said he was) he says the "grandfather concept" does not apply. meaning if you were to kill your grandfather before your fathers birth you would not disappear, vaporize or what ever. becuase a seperate timeline is created apon any change made during travel.

using the movie as a template he could save his girl, and create a new timeline. she would still die in the original timeline ,but that timeline would not be able to be reached unless there were a dimension-travel machine. so from his perspective she would be fine, and live happily ever after.

now if you believe fate dictates are lives timetravel is an impossible senario(unless by fate timetravel was invented, and so on)

now of course this is only true if titor is genuine.
So...
when titor came back in time he created a new timeline. he created a world where ppl knew of the things to come; he exposed the future to many ppl. the timeline without titors interference is gone, the timeline he came from is also gone(due to them being the same timeline). when he went forward to 2036 he would have encountered a differnt world(our new timeline). but how much of difference would there be, is it better or worse? only titor would know.

the facts are a man claimed this future to us, and that alone has affected the world..this thread is evidence,and many many others.

maybe titors presence removed the civil war or maybe it just postponed it.

though i still cant say the civilwar didnt start in 2004



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join