posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 06:59 AM
Obvious fake for 2 very important reasons.
1. He never gave any specific deteails about the future.
2. The words he used, (his language) is that of today. There was no lingo from the future.
What I mean by this is, if you were to go back 32 years to 1964, you'd hear alot of words we don't hear anymore in 2004. And the people in 1964
would hear alot of words from you, they hardly, if ever, used in the way we use them today.
Thats his flaw....... he didn't account for constantly changing trends in our language.
For example, in the 70's, 'groovy' ment cool, then in the 80's 'rad' ment cool, then in the 90's 'dope' ment cool, so on, and so on. This
happens with many, many words, with those words having multiple meanings. Like me saying now, 'man that car is pimp'. If i said that 32 years ago,
or 32 years from now, no one would 'get it'.
The fact that he didn't use any 'lingo' from the future, says to me, that he's a fake.