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 fraud or not?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator

how is 'retrieval' possible if every trip creates a new universe? how does his trip benefit anyone back home? i am sure i missed something.


You missed the part where Titor said:

John Titor: The computer units and gravity sensors "record" your trip and you are quite easily able to return to your point of origin


And when Titor returns it would be like:

John Titor: From their point of view, I will return almost exactly at the same moment I left. From their viewpoint, I will only have aged more than expected.



[edit on 15-7-2008 by imitator]


i did not miss that. i read it. and unfortunately, that doesnt jive with the string theory this is supposedly all based on right? besides, it doesnt make sense just from his own explanation of a new timeline being created. he said himself that he would never return to his own place and time but 'another' john very similar to him will show up where he left. you guys dont even agree with each other on what he said or the science he used. can i get a straight answer without being told -heres what you missed...and then something that contradicts what i apparently missed the last time?




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
Im not sure about a different titor coming back from what i read the time machine device he used took gravitational signatures or something of the like so he could use the same route back and obviously then the same titor would arrive back in the same time line he came from.

Im just going from memory here about something i read ages ago. There is a whole information archive available here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read it see if it makes sense to you and then with your knowledge of physice post a thread in the forums with your conclusions. I would be interested in reading it.


tell you what. i will post my conclusions when i get a valid, believable WHOLE story with consistant facts. i have every coast to coast conversation on tape as well as the supposed 'titor' posting on ATS. Unfortunately, pseudoscience trips up, circles back on itself, and gives me reason to question. answer my simple questions with actual answers and then maybe i can make a conclusion or two. you really want conclusions, here is what we get so far
1-titorites do not agree on what he says



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
Im not sure about a different titor coming back from what i read the time machine device he used took gravitational signatures or something of the like so he could use the same route back and obviously then the same titor would arrive back in the same time line he came from.

Im just going from memory here about something i read ages ago. There is a whole information archive available here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read it see if it makes sense to you and then with your knowledge of physice post a thread in the forums with your conclusions. I would be interested in reading it.


and let me say, my appologies if i sounded arrogant. see i talked for a few hours with some titor folks. they were quite proud in their vast encyclopedic knowledge of the case. but when asked about science that was not explained within any of john's writings....they were stumped. it just seemed to me a little naive to buy any story, no matter how well you memorized it, based solely on the story and not the context of the actualy scientific reality in which it is supposedly based. I think the last two responses I got actually demonstrate that quite well. they abandon the science that was being thrown in the first place to repeat titorpoints. so maybe if i ask like this it will be easier to answer.
lets say i know nothng of physics. no arrogant pretext. i am a lowly knave in search of knowledge. now can anyone explain to me where in string theory it eplain how john can make a return trip to his original destination to give them anythnig 'retrieved' or where it explains that john leaving here would chance, cause, allow another john from another worldline to show up where the first john left from?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

re22666
did not miss that. i read it. and unfortunately, that doesnt jive with the string theory this is supposedly all based on right? besides, it doesnt make sense just from his own explanation of a new timeline being created. he said himself that he would never return to his own place and time but 'another' john very similar to him will show up where he left.

I think your confounded by his "point of origin." It doesn't literally mean exact time line, nothing contrary about that.


re22666
you guys dont even agree with each other on what he said or the science he used. can i get a straight answer without being told -heres what you missed...and then something that contradicts what i apparently missed the last time?


I gave you pretty much a straight answer from Titor, it's just a corroboration from what he said and not from someone else. I gave you no contradictory statement. It seems your trying to make us antagonistic, given how commonly science is antagonistic toward many things.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by imitator]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by imitator

re22666
did not miss that. i read it. and unfortunately, that doesnt jive with the string theory this is supposedly all based on right? besides, it doesnt make sense just from his own explanation of a new timeline being created. he said himself that he would never return to his own place and time but 'another' john very similar to him will show up where he left.

I think your confounded by his "point of origin." It doesn't literally mean exact time line, nothing contrary about that.


re22666
you guys dont even agree with each other on what he said or the science he used. can i get a straight answer without being told -heres what you missed...and then something that contradicts what i apparently missed the last time?


I gave you pretty much a straight answer from Titor, it's just a corroboration from what he said and not from someone else. I gave you no contradictory statement. It seems your trying to make us antagonistic, given how commonly science is antagonistic toward many things.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by imitator]


i am not confounding anything, nor am i trynig to be antagonistic. I asked a very simple question, got two different answers, and i can find contradictions to both in john titors own words soooooooooooooooooo......... let me just say, thanks for again, not really answering my question or addressing the only issue i really have with the story and telling me absoloutely nothng that even remotely tries to clear up my question. should i ask it a 3rd time for clarity? im not looking for a fight, its just that when i get more than one contradictiory answer, or no actual answer at all, i still have my original question. if you dont care to help make this case believable to someone with a mind that is actually open to it...well then why did you bother posting anything back to me at all?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Here Mr physics, read a little about M-theory

For you other Titorite fans I would suggest you check it out as well. YOu know that equation (E8xE8) Titor gave in one of his answers? Well it is also explained in that link!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Here Mr physics, read a little about M-theory

For you other Titorite fans I would suggest you check it out as well. YOu know that equation (E8xE8) Titor gave in one of his answers? Well it is also explained in that link!



i already told you to completely disregard anything i said about physics. pretend i have never even heard of the concept. i iwll read your link when i get a chance but it seems to me that if you are all so smart as to be so condescending, then you could have just answered my question several posts ago. why is it so hard? is my question to hard to understand? did i lose you somewhere?

and just out of curiosity, is this "timetravel_0" considered by you to be the real john titor of which you all claim to get "his" words? or do you just base it on his documentation.

yes that is a completely new question, i hope that isnt too much since the one has been such some turmoil thus far.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

i am not confounding anything, nor am i trynig to be antagonistic. I asked a very simple question, got two different answers, and i can find contradictions to both in john titors own words soooooooooooooooooo.........

You said, "you guys dont even agree with each other". That comment would seem antagonistic by grouping people as inconsistent. I usuually agree with the Titorites, maybe our personal views seem different, however I didn't start off by giving my views in this thread. I do apologize if there is a misunderstanding in that. Just thought it'll be more clear on how retrieval is possible and how it would benefit, assuming you read some of Titor's posts.

They'll get the IBM, if you could see Titor and his worldlines like a section of computing code.

1. The program starts
2. Input the task
3. Display worldline percentages for task
4. Repeat steps 1 thru 3 until task complete
5. Displays task results: Game Over!
I'm not a very good programmer, maybe it's something like that. Gosub is the key word... lol



re22666
if you dont care to help make this case believable to someone with a mind that is actually open to it...well then why did you bother posting anything back to me at all?

I find myself defending my posts by trying to help. You said, "its a fraud obviously. unless i missed something". And of course I assumed you missed something. An open minded person wouldn't start off by calling it a fraud and grouping people as inconsistent. That form of discourse doesn't seem open minded to me.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator

i am not confounding anything, nor am i trynig to be antagonistic. I asked a very simple question, got two different answers, and i can find contradictions to both in john titors own words soooooooooooooooooo.........

You said, "you guys dont even agree with each other". That comment would seem antagonistic by grouping people as inconsistent. I usuually agree with the Titorites, maybe our personal views seem different, however I didn't start off by giving my views in this thread. I do apologize if there is a misunderstanding in that. Just thought it'll be more clear on how retrieval is possible and how it would benefit, assuming you read some of Titor's posts.

They'll get the IBM, if you could see Titor and his worldlines like a section of computing code.

1. The program starts
2. Input the task
3. Display worldline percentages for task
4. Repeat steps 1 thru 3 until task complete
5. Displays task results: Game Over!
I'm not a very good programmer, maybe it's something like that. Gosub is the key word... lol



re22666
if you dont care to help make this case believable to someone with a mind that is actually open to it...well then why did you bother posting anything back to me at all?

I find myself defending my posts by trying to help. You said, "its a fraud obviously. unless i missed something". And of course I assumed you missed something. An open minded person wouldn't start off by calling it a fraud and grouping people as inconsistent. That form of discourse doesn't seem open minded to me.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]


i didnt start this thread. i didnt start with the fraud thing. i just came to this thread.

i say inconsistant with each other because some say john could return. some say a new john would appear. so which is it?

the program doesnt add up for in his physics each reiteritation of the subroutine would begin a new subroutine creating a new chunk of memory to run on its own until it then started over as a new program in a new chunk of memory, there is no way BACK to line 1



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Maybe I should add: Game Over! Please try again or Task complete program terminates. They would complete their task no matter what and one of the John's could be sent to line 1 or before line 1.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator
Maybe I should add: Game Over! Please try again or Task complete program terminates. They would complete their task no matter what and one of the John's could be sent to line 1 or before line 1.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]


maybe i should repeat myself. there is no goto line with a lower number than any preceeding it in the program if each and every trip through time creats a new world line.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
re22666,

Yes, there could be lower numbers that precede inside the program, this program could have other dimensions or worldines that lead back to 1. It looks like your using a form of Basic, and that would make it very limited.

For it to work, you should assume the language is considerably complex, not basic.

You could also see it like a form of loop logic in a syntax tree by sending data back to line 1 without running into any paradoxes. Those branches could have several executional parts, that resides in it, or one could have "sub-statements" returning back to line 1 through another dimension or worldline where the task completes, making it self-consistent.

I could go on trying to make sense of it, but something tells me you wouldn't agree lol.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by imitator
re22666,

Yes, there could be lower numbers that precede inside the program, this program could have other dimensions or worldines that lead back to 1. It looks like your using a form of Basic, and that would make it very limited.

For it to work, you should assume the language is considerably complex, not basic.

You could also see it like a form of loop logic in a syntax tree by sending data back to line 1 without running into any paradoxes. Those branches could have several executional parts, that resides in it, or one could have "sub-statements" returning back to line 1 through another dimension or worldline where the task completes, making it self-consistent.

I could go on trying to make sense of it, but something tells me you wouldn't agree lol.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]


i am guessing that you are right, i will not agree. your analogy is poor. it completely misses the fact that in each trip through time, the destination creates a new world line, thus there is no way to make a return trip.

let me try to make it easy for you, if a subroutine caused a program to abandon its current program and begin a brand new one and start fresh. in each program there is this subroutine that allows for you to jump, each time it jumps it creates the new program withe subsequent subroutine. unfortunately, john titors program do not include a subroutine to jump back to an old program. it will only make a new one each time. so how would it ever return a variable to the original program?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Of course each destination creates a new world line. My analogy was: if you could see a syntax tree as worldlines and John as the data.

The example Titor used A,B,C,D is somewhat like subroutines, with it in reverse D,C,B he's using alternative timelines to return to point A. The condition your creating with subroutines assumes either that there is only one timeline, or alternative timelines that's not accessible to any worldline. It seems your seeing it as basic code.

You don't know the state of Titor's A, it could be switching from one state to another, with B,C,D going in and out of it.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
...This genuine scientist absolutely destroyed the "science" that Titor was proclaiming as the means of his travels... ...

Don't forget, a scientist put out a peer-reviewed paper that DESTROYED the idea of heavier-than-air flight. This was about 1 week before Wilbur and Orville went to Kittyhawk.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator
Of course each destination creates a new world line. My analogy was: if you could see a syntax tree as worldlines and John as the data.

The example Titor used A,B,C,D is somewhat like subroutines, with it in reverse D,C,B he's using alternative timelines to return to point A. The condition your creating with subroutines assumes either that there is only one timeline, or alternative timelines that's not accessible to any worldline. It seems your seeing it as basic code.

You don't know the state of Titor's A, it could be switching from one state to another, with B,C,D going in and out of it.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by imitator]


i do not want to seem rude but stop. you are losing it completely and double talking just for a second. nothing of what i said determines one line. i clearly stated there is a new one created with each trip. in fact you quote me saying that above. so....if each destination creates a NEW world line. then how can you ever travel BACK to an old one. the trip in and of itself is taking you somewhere new within your new timeline to a place that does not exsist until you get there. so how...please tell me how then. do you go back to where you came from based on that line of thinking.

i will give you a hint, your argument so far actually contradicts john titors own words anyway but please, go on.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator

I'm not a very good programmer, maybe it's something like that. Gosub is the key word... lol





and this statement right here is why you should stop usng this as your analogy then. any subjects that you might have at least a little knowledge of that might work better. it is hard to prove your point when trying to speak a language you do not know.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
let me take that back first i guess i need to know which one of the explanations i have been given since i asked yesterday we are going with. you dont agree so i will say, not all of you are contradictin johns own words but...you are contradicting each other.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Myself and my fiancee' (Who has since passed away), both read Titor's posts back around 2002ish and to both of us, it had the "ring" of truth. The type of thing that gives you goosebumps. Was he real? I for one cannot answer that question and unlike about 500,000 other people on this and MANY other forums will not make myself look like a moron by asserting with no proof that he wasn't who he said he was. Like another poster in this thread, i will say that it was VERY interesting and definitely gave me a thrill that no other Sci-Fi has before or since, so I guess it doesn't really matter? One way or another, real or fake, the "name" is now LEGEND.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
Myself and my fiancee' (Who has since passed away), both read Titor's posts back around 2002ish and to both of us, it had the "ring" of truth. The type of thing that gives you goosebumps. Was he real? I for one cannot answer that question and unlike about 500,000 other people on this and MANY other forums will not make myself look like a moron by asserting with no proof that he wasn't who he said he was. Like another poster in this thread, i will say that it was VERY interesting and definitely gave me a thrill that no other Sci-Fi has before or since, so I guess it doesn't really matter? One way or another, real or fake, the "name" is now LEGEND.


i have yet to claim he is not who he says he was. i called him an obvious fraud if.......but context isnt everything i suppose. i know i also stated that i was very interested and that is why i started looking but i was left with questions even though id like to belive, i cannot do it with any lingering doubts so i thought i would try to clear them up here. instead what i found was arrogant derrisiveness and little else.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join