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.

 

John Titor Voting Map Prediction

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
yes yes its another John Titor thread!! yay!

I was looking at john titor times website and came across this




IS THIS WHAT JOHN TOLD US TO LOOK FOR WITH THE VOTING MAP?

"Q: Are some areas of the United States safer than others?

JOHN - NOV. 25, 2000: Take a close look at the county-by-county voting map from the last
elections."



What exactly are they talking about there? Hints of safe places perhaps during WW3 can be found from our recent presidental vote??

Here is a map of the electoral votes
www.electoral-vote.com...


Perhaps it is the white coloured states that are the safest? Or blue states (voters for kerry) ??




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Election results by county





[edit on 17-4-2005 by balon0]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
soo.......am I looking to ~WANT~ to be in a red area? or a blue one?
I am a little confused here.....





posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The red area represents the marjority of votes for Bush and blue for Kerry. I rememeber from the John Titor threads, since Bush won the election then then because of that there will be a civil war in america and then ww3. So Bush winning equals a negative thing. Therefore I believe that states that did not support Bush will be the safe place to be?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
No, he was supposed to have lived along the west coast of Florida with his family after the civil war and WW3. If you read what he said, it wasn't about politics so much as city vs. country folk. The voting map is really the same thing, almost all the dense population areas voted democrat so you know there are two groups with different values. City dwellers have aleady given up a lot of their freedoms and privacy just because of their way of life, and more controls and police presence is good for business and makes them feel safer. In the country, more police and controls would not be welcomed.

When you've got a small percentage of the people with different ideals you're at risk of civil unrest. A larger percentage and you can have civil uprisings. When you have two factions evenly split, civil war.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
So im looking at a map, explain the civil war to me again? i remember reading it before in the NWO section about a civil war about to start, but i dont see how. All i see is America, Blue and Red



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
It's the votes by county.

Personally I think it's safer to be living in the red.

If there was a terrorist attack, where would it be, New York or a farm in Kansas?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Did John Titor ever mention any other places that might be safe? I remember he said South America was safe



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think its helpful to look at this map also when considering the map above:



As I believe someone above me pointed out, Titor mentioned a Civil War between rural areas and the more urban areas. Titor hinted strongly that he was a member of the rural area's side. The reference to "some places being safer than others" (not an exact quote) probably refers to this:

The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.

If all major cities are destroyed through nuclear war, logically the countryside would be safer.

More interesting to me are his comments regarding the current President:



The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by el_topo
If all major cities are destroyed through nuclear war, logically the countryside would be safer.[/qoute]
Maybe in the very shortterm. If all major cities where devastated that would imply that the entire country was pretty much nuked directly or indirectly.



The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.

Yes, but what president isn't interesting in keeping his/her power base. It's interesting that Titor said "his/her". Why the ambiguity?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
In the titor story, the bad guys are the federal government, and the good guys are the anti-government militias. That makes the 'free' people in the red counties, and the "American Federal Empire" as the blue counties, which are almost exclusivley cities. Titor specifically notes this, that people who want protection in exchange for their liberty move to or stay in the cities. The cities are where the obtrusive, socialist-liberal-type meddling/policestate government has control, and the country side are where it doesn't.

The Russians take advantage of the civil war to Nuke the AFE, IOW the cities are what gets vaporized. So if you actually think titor is a time traveler, you'd best be runnig away from the cities.



The blue regions are of course heavily democratic, as illustrated by the 2000 presidential elections, not the 2004 elections, which is what titor refered too. People like Gore were loathed by the militias, because of Clinton and Waco and the like. They saw the democrats as insidious power-freaks who would divide and take over the country nad make it into a policestate. Basically, Clinton/Gore were perceived as Bush/Cheney is now.

So, Titor is a Republican, his family (alive in the 'here and now' according to the story) voted for Bush. Or, possibly, sincehe is from Florida, they were one of the few that actually voted for Buchannon!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
So, when 2006 rolls around, and there's been no Civil War, can we finally put this Titor business to bed?


Just curious...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Nope, sorry... he didn't say there was a civil war in 2006. He said it would sneak up but be obvious by 2008. Three more years...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
John Titor is based on a character in the novel "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank. Of course people will say the novel is somehow based on the real John Titor.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   


Nope, sorry... he didn't say there was a civil war in 2006. He said it would sneak up but be obvious by 2008. Three more years...

No he said it would start in 2004.

It'll be on everyone's doorstep by 2008....



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird


Nope, sorry... he didn't say there was a civil war in 2006. He said it would sneak up but be obvious by 2008. Three more years...

No he said it would start in 2004.

It'll be on everyone's doorstep by 2008....


I haven't read it in a long time but I'm pretty sure he said it would be a series of 'Waco like events' that started in 2004/ 2005 and it wouldn't be obvious there was an actual civil war going on until 2008. Then world war, then the US is nuked in 2015. All that to look forward to!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   


Nope, sorry... he didn't say there was a civil war in 2006. He said it would sneak up but be obvious by 2008. Three more years


Ahh crap...


Oh well...last I checked, we aren't having monthly Waco events this year, so he's still Wrong with a capital W....



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
If this story takes on any more of a life of its own, believers will start causing the monthly "Waco events" which were supposed to begin last year.
I'm not a physicist, but I know that John Titor's story doesn't jive. By coming back he would have created a divergent timeline defined by his presence in our time from which he could never possibly escape back into his own timeline. Thus he could never have taken the computer back to the people who needed it. His mission was completely illogical. The only way it could be true is if his civilization had managed to time travel inspite of an INCREDIBLY flawed understanding of the concept.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by darklanser
John Titor is based on a character in the novel "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank. Of course people will say the novel is somehow based on the real John Titor.


Huh? I first read that book in 1985 and read it every now and then still. What character do you see as being the basis for Titor?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond Thus he could never have taken the computer back to the people who needed it.

More than that, a 32-bit UNIX system would be totally useless on the type of machine needed to "power" a time machine.

...unless, of course, the time machine is run off coal oil and cog wheels and punch cards.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join