It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


John Titor: Hoax

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:22 AM

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
My point: If, in the next few years, such manipulation of space-time DOES occur, JT hoaxers will be forced to concede that JT' s scenario *might* have occured. In the same sense, we know that the first powered, heavier than air flight occured in 1903... yet it isn't 'impossible' that a similar flight, conducted by different people, might have occured in 1900.

Well, firstly, powered flight wasn't considered an impossible in 1900, there were a lot of people actively researching it.

Secondly, your statement is true, but to make a more accurate metaphor, the situation would have to include the person or people who 'flew in 1900' releasing a clearly fake picture of the event.

And, considering that the main debunking of JT revolves around the argument that his story is impossible... if it becomes clear that space-time manipulation via singularities is possible, the debunkers will have to concede that his story is not 'fantastic'... and so they will not be able to use that argument against what he says.

Well, that is not the main argument at all. Thats the point we are at when we begin the assessment of Titor's statements. The core proof he is lying is covered throughout this thread. We've seen gravity bend light, we've seen what has happened since Titor posted. Both of which are completely out of line with his comments and statements. Ockham is perfectly relevant (and has quite a deal of cutting to do) in this case.

Remember, we are starting with one anonymous person on an online forum making these outlandish statements, which are full of holes, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and oversights.

We have the two solutions, Titor is Telling the Truth, or Titor is Lying.

For the first to be true, the explanation has to be extremely complicated and convoluted to cover up all those holes, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and oversights.

For the second to be true, the explanation is a single step process. It is a hoax.

Ockham is happy, and I am Batman.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Kano
Ockham is happy, and I am Batman.

No question about it! I've seen Kano's cape and his cave!

Now where's my utility belt?


posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:44 AM
Its not invented yet!

[size=-3]Heh sorry everyone, couldnt resist that one, I shall now give myself and Springer the required 1liners.

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 03:42 PM
John Titor is fake, when he mentioned a "farmer general'" that just gave it away he's fake, he couldn't come up with a better leader. the final proof will just be to wait until the end of next year, just as with aussie bloke the final proof was just wait to see if his supposed meteors would hit the earth.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 02:31 PM

it's really hard to make conversation with you

onlyinmydreams is trying to make simple point to you, but you simple don't understand.

The point is that JT is just a man (fake or not). I have problems with understanding what is my girlfriend talking to me, and she is even from this time

You can go over and over, and say "why he did not say this, or why did he not say that?" of this or that.

He said what he said, the issue is that you cant at the moment say by the things he said, that he is a HOAX.

There is just not enough material to say that.

Just bacuse he dont know something (or did not say), that you think it's important he is not a liar.

I think JT story and everything around is faked, but not on based on things that he is saying, cause there is just no WAY to say that's not true (cause it did not yet happen), but on pictures, mostly on laser picture.

Ofcourse I can be wrong, but time will tell.

Also, your point that he knew about problems with space station, but he did not say something (or nothing) about shutle problem.

Well, take me for example. For me World War 2 started by invasion on Poland. On date 1 of SEP, in 1939. I know this date as a fact, I don't have to check it on Google or something.

I have no idea (honestly) when did Japan attacked "Pearl Harbur" was it 40 or 41, I have no idea. (ofcoruse I can track it down on google in no time).

For you, "Pearl harbur" is something really important, for me, it was just another day in the all ready blody war.

But let we do some more of that.

For example, I know there was around 50 MIL people dead in WW2 and half of them was russian's.

I have no idea in what year of war this peopel was killed or how many mil. in each year.

I also have no idea when was war over. (the exactly date), but I know from my point of stand that war was lasting for 6 years.

So, please have open mind.

Also, I see no proof of "religion aspect" in onlyinmydreams posts. His posts are really very easy to read and with alot of short information to make a point.

He is not using emotions to make a point, you are.

You are taking all this much to personal.

Best regards,

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 07:23 PM
Welcome ivan, as you might have noticed from the thread, the fact that he missed all those things is merely one aspect of the flaws in Titors claims.

The most prominent is of course the faked light bending image.

Followed by the fact that the predictions he did make have so far been wrong.

Then thirdly is the fact he predicted nothing that has happened since he was here. No 911, no Bali, no Madrid, no Afghanistan, no Iraq, no Enron, no MER, no Columbia, no SARS.

Sure we can look at each individually and think up little reasons for any of them to be overlooked. But we need to consider the fact that he has mentioned NOTHING that wasn't already happening at the time. He mentions nothing that has happened in the time since.

As far as your Pearl Harbour analogy, its still a little shaky, heres why.
WWII is further in our past than the WoT is in Titor's past.
If you were going back in time at least some cursory study would have to be taken of the time periods you were going back to. Ideally you would pick someone reasonably versed in History to complete the mission.
Even without any knowledge of the specifics, if you had gone back to a time to 1940, even after Europe was at war. You might not know when it happened, but you would know that it happened. Also that it was pretty much how the US was brought into the war.
Especially if you had gone back in time to the US in 1940.

Thats my point, he doesn't have to give dates and times. He does have to be aware of these things. He isn't, not mentioning anything that he couldn't have just guessed about at the time. (Guesses that are subsequently turning up wrong, as expected).

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:10 PM
what if Titor was on a rogue mission trying to change the outcome on our timeline? perhaps he was trying to steer our future by posting certain things. perhaps by his postings the future has changed and some events havent occured.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:22 PM
It's a simple hoax. He did not mension the 911 attacks, because he did not know anything about it. Of course, it was far beyond his imagination, so he could not even hoax it up. Poor fellow, wants to be popular... but this way?

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:52 PM
Kano, my point WAS that powered flight was possible with 1900 technology. In fact, there are some people who argue that the first powered flight occured in Brazil just before the Wright brothers flight. A Brazilian time traveler to 1900-1901 would identify THAT event as the first flight... and they may only have a vague notion of what the Wright brothers did.

This underlines my point: You cannot debunk Titor on the basis of his historical perspective not lining up with your historical perspective. In the end, a great deal of what we consider to be historical 'fact' is actually interpretation. In your examples you have repeatedly treated interpretations of events as the events themselves... you've said that 9-11 disproves Titor because he did not mention it... and that he should have done so because this is the major story of our time, an observation that rests on the notion that 9-11 will ALWAYS be seen as the big event of our era. Tell me: if you lived a world where tens of millions had just died in a nuclear war, would you see a terrorist attack where 3,000 people died as being much different than terrorist attacks where 200 people die, or a variety of middel eastern wars where tens of thousands die?

Also, JT's not mentioning 9-11 isn't a flaw simply because he repeatedly said he was NOT interested in giving people history lessons. rather, he was trying to point out the lifestyle flaws he saw in our society. He wasn't a historian sent back to give people individual tips... he was a guy on a mission (within his narrative) who was commenting on what he saw as a degrading culture. If you went back to 1840s America you might feel compelled to comment on slavery in the south, but would you list every battle of the civil war?

The key, here, is that JT never claimed to be on a mission to change history. He was here to retrieve a piece of equipment... and ended up visiting our near time, and posting on the net, for personal reasons. He was aghast at how we live our lives... that's why he was posting. Again, if you went back to 1840s america and expressed outrage over slavery would you automatically list details regarding the Battle of Gettysburg?

Think, also, of the effect revealing 9-11 before the actual date would have had. His story would instantly have been believed by millions... and the government could have faced a rebellion on September 12, 2001. Or... let's say the 9-11 attacks were somehow prevented by his revelaing them (Osama was reading ATS and saw his plan exposed, lets' say)... the effect might have been that the us wouldn't have done anything about terrorism until a REALLY big disaster happened that led everyone to accept martial law without question (let's say 9-11 never happens... instead a nuclear bomb goes off in new york in 2004... well, if that happened, people would accept the ubergovernment JT hated so much without question. His 'improved' society and fight for freedom would never have happened and the Earth could be living under a dictatorship).

Also... remember that JT said he would not comment on deaths involving statistical probabilities. Walking down the street in midtown manhatten during a building collapse is one of those.

As for the light... yes... it is the biggest problem with his story. However, your history-based debunking is still flawed. Why, also, if it's clearly so impossible... would JT have faked it at all? Surely a guy who took the time to write up a story about artificial singularities would have thought out the light question? If he wanted to fake 'proof' of his machine, he could have just done trick photography that made the outside of his car look weird during time travel.

So far as the laser picture istelf goes, note how the light doesn't bend until it reaches the outside of the car.

I could write more... but I've just sat here for a half hour thinking about this.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:53 PM

does an odd piece of foam falling from the shuttle's external tank equal something MORE than 2% of historical divergence? It seems to me that the accident that actually brought down the shuttle might not have happened in many worldlines.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 08:02 PM
Again, a pointed explanation of how he might have overlooked ONE of the things that has happened since he was here. (Even though its a little tenuous, I don't think Titor is from Brazil, even if he was, if he had mentioned some things in Brazil's future it would have been just as useful to prove his story.)

How do you explain the fact he has mentioned NONE of the things that has happened since he was here? The Civil war is meant to be starting this year (in fact the civil uprising is already meant to have started, but thats not why you called). Surely something that has happened in the last 3.5 years has been relevant? The actual lead-up to the Civil War?

Why would he mention Mad Cow and the Palestinian Intifada (and the '00 elections) in relation to the Civil war, yet nothing that has happened since.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 08:15 PM
Speculation i sthe "soothsayers'" dream or nightmare. Dream when time proves them right and nightmare when they are so far off the "mark" they have to back pedsl in order to save face.

The BEAUTY of Titor is he has left us and is in no way responsible for or even available for comment on his omissions, which as Kano has pointed out are MANY.

Taking the same logic used (to a goodly argument I might add) by Onlyinmydreams, one would think it near IMPOSSIBLE to not "notice" the grand events of our very recent past if one was in fact, a time traveler here on a mission...

Using the argument that he was here ONLY on an "equipment gathering mission" and that releives him of any responsibility to report the possibilities (of which he got ZERO-as Kano points out) of what is literally right round the corner (based on the dates he posted) one must ask WHY did he start this whole business then?

If his goal was to "slip in", grab what he needed and "slip out" (inferred by this logic) then WHY in the HECK would he initiate a GRAND internet conversation?

Surely he would've known that HIS internet presence STARTED a huge, global conversation would he not? I can maybe "buy" an ignorance of historical facts but not an ignorance of one's own actions...


posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:11 AM
Well, within the structure of JT's story, he did 'slip in' and 'out' of his target area... he made it to the 1970s, encountered his grandfather and acquired the computer. He then jumped forward into the late 90s/2000 time period to meet his family. Now, on some other sites I've gone over since this story first popped up on ATS (and I did read about it here first, btw), this deviation from the original mission has been discussed at great length. The general sentiment is that going forward in time to our very recent past was part of the deal he made with his grandfather... presumably the older man either asked JT to warn his kids about WW3 as a favor or made it a condition of his cooperation. Even without such a deal, it's pretty easy to see how a man without supervision might not be able to resist going to see his prewar family. If he was selected for the mission based on who he was related to, it's reasonable to assume that this was his only temporal recon mission. In a way, this was his last chance to meet mom and dad from the old, easier days.

As for his posting on the net... he made it clear that, though at first he had disdain for our era, he grew to feel bad for us. It might make sense for him to 'go native' and start posting his comments on internet boards as a way of either helping a few people or lessening his own guilt. Keep in mind that he mostly wrote about philosophical stuff (comments on what was degrading in our society) and that he felt WW3 was inevitable (would you waste time trying to stop what you were sure would happen... or would you give people lifestyle tips that could help them?).

Now... JT did make, I believe, prescient comments about the near future. There's a point where he asks someone if they would consider a search for WMDs (and he refers to weapons of mass destruction before that became a household phrase) a political ploy. Since I wasn't planning on talking about that when I started this thread i don't have the exact page number... but I'll come back with a link later.

When it comes to the observation that JT never identified the 'farmer general'... well, would it make sense to hand out the identity of your most admired rebel leader? If a real civil war broke out he could be arrested in ten minutes flat.

Now... as for the bent light thing...
So far I've only made historical and psychological rebuttals, but I think we should study the laser picture more before we dismiss it right away.

First, note how the laser doesn't bend until it crosses a certain point that corresponds with the edge of the car door
Second, note how the air outside the car isn't filled with any distinct objects (contrary to what has been said, there are no 'objects' beyond the window that are clearly not bent.

Now, consider this:

Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light... and he was proven correct. As has been repeatedly shown in astronomical experiments, massive objects like the sun can actually bend the direction light takes. For fun... draw an imaginary line along the path the ACTUAL light takes in the diagram above. You'll notice that it makes an arc like JT's laser photo does. If, somehow, scientists were able to draw a line in space that followed the path of such light from its source star to an observatory on earth... it would show the same bend.

Kano has claimed that the laser would still appear straight, even if passing what JT says it is, because its 'path' would be corrected upon passing into normal space. However, when light bends upon hitting amedium (take the pencil in glass of water example) it does not automatically correct itself when reaching the eye. In fact, the human eye sees a pencil that appears to be 'snapped'. No, I'm not saying that passing through changing mediums is the same as passing near intense gravity, but I AM saying that the eye/camera can pick up indications that light is being distorted.

Let's also pretend that light going from Planet A to Earth, but that's being bent by star A, is a laser light that's also passing through a giant cloud of something akin to cigar smoke (a dense nebula, let's say). We know that this light WILL be bent by star A and that people on Earth will see Planet A in a false location. OK... so, are people who live on another planet orbiting Star B, let's say, seeing a beam of light that's going straight to earth? Or... would they see a red line that's being bent by Star A? They simply couldn't be seeing a straight line because it would have an off-earth endpoint.

[edit on 13-7-2004 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 13-7-2004 by onlyinmydreams]

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
when light bends upon hitting amedium (take the pencil in glass of water example) it does not automatically correct itself when reaching the eye. In fact, the human eye sees a pencil that appears to be 'snapped'.

The flaw with this comparison is that the pencil is not bending.

The only change of direction in that scenario is the light on its way from the pencil to the observer. Thus the pencil appears bent.

In this scenario however it is not a solid object we are observing, but a beam of light. Which its bent going both ways.

The laser would be bent going from the over the object to the particles, then bent back on its path from the particles to the observer.

On top of this is the fact that if the gravitational field was intense enough to bend light so sharply, any matter around (air, smoke) would very very rapidly be sucked inwards.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:36 AM
A couple of things (it' late where I am, so pardon my lack of detasil below):

1.We are not observing a a beam of light. We are observing cigar smoke being illuminated in places by light. We are, then, in fact observing 'objects'.
2.The light we are seeing hitting the cigar puffs past a certain point IS being bent... that's why the light stream appears to bend. Your main point has been that any light going from these points along the stream to our eyes (or the cameras, for that amtter) would be bent. I agree... because that's why the laser light looks like its bending. Just as in the Einstein case with the star passing by the sun, the laser reflections off of the cigar smoke particles are seen in the 'wrong' spot precisely because the light returning to the viewer IS being bent. The effect you say we're not seeing is that which we are actually seeing... otherwise the light would be going straight forward.
3.An extension of your earlier ideas would be that, after a certain point, the light would simply vanish. Note, then, how the laser beam DOES stop after a certain point. If you follow the bea from emitter to end... it is clear that the beam, itself, gets bent for awhile and then disappears.
4.We can't tell if the rest of the smoke, past the point of gravitational distortion, is being bent or not. Even if picture quality was perfect, since smoke is so amorphous it would be hard to make such an assesment.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:44 AM
Yes but there is light being bent in both directions. The light bouncing back off the particles is the same light that left the laser pointer. I'll make a diagram later on to show what I mean.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:44 AM

I need to clarify something before I go to bed...

Kano's main point is that the laser picture is a hoax because the light going from the end of the laser 'beam' (though it's really a series of cigar smoke points being illuminated by the beam) to the camera would be distorted or bent if a real artificial singularity were operating nearby. My point is that the light IS being bent because the trail of the light is bending instead of going straight forward... the evidence for the bedning of the light going from laser beam to camera lense is the apparent beding of the laser trail/beam.. whatever you want to call... itself... just as the proof for the Einstein star experiment is that the light from the distant star is in the wrong spot, which means that the light has been bent.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Kano
Yes but there is light being bent in both directions. The light bouncing back off the particles is the same light that left the laser pointer. I'll make a diagram later on to show what I mean.

yes, that would be good. It's time for drawings in this discussion.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:55 AM
Incidentally, if it was somehow possible to put a straight object through the field, it would appear to bend upwards as it passed through the field, due to the bending of the observed light.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:06 AM
I believe, that the 911 events were so unique, and penetrated into the entire civilization, that if this guy really travelled to the future, this would be the very first thing to mension, or he would even try stopping it. He is just like everyone else, it would be hard to live the way, he let those 3000 die for nothing. But let's say, he did not want to stop it... what's that civil war compared to the 911 events he said? Nothing, and it will simply not happen. He never traveled to the future, and he proved it well enough.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in