Well it could 2 ways, IMHO.
1. JT was a real timetraveller.
2. JT was a fake timetraveller.

Let me take a quick flashback.

One year after the CCCP collapsed, I was reading the introductory manual to a "fantasy" game.
It described the history from 1980 to the first few years of the XXI century.
he was quite accurate in showing how the world evolved...
Checking the printing date I was shocked to discover it was 4 years before and it was a reprint! the original date was 5 years before.
I'm sure you all remember how quickly it collapsed and Russia and the other republics emerged from it.
I was unbelievable 4 or 3 years before.
But it was here, written.
How was it possible?
They did not claim to read the future, the were very good at guessing it.

Now I think JT isn't a timetraveller but he still like to read posts about him.

But he made some good guesses about our future.

Let's see which ones and discuss them in few posts (maybe tomorrow).

maybe its because of his return the timeline changed....slightly changing something in the past can cause serious changes in the future

Welcome to my first ATS post

I am neither for nor against the JT theories, as a matter of fact I have only really read of them since I joined ATS a few weeks ago. I have enjoyed reading the posts for and against. I had a thought reading through this today. I stress it is "just a thought" not a well researched theory.

Two comments attributed to John Titor are:
1) the US will be involved in a civil war from 2004 onwards;
2) and that there will be a "Waco style event" approx. once a month.

Now in my observing of world events from my remote little corner of the planet (New Zealand) I have a point of view affected by time and distance. I suggest it could be argued that the conflict in IRAQ has turned to a "civil war" sort of conflict. Despite the number of troops deployed etc, the conflicts seem to have become mostly localised events between seperate militias/sections of iraqi peoples. Mostly they seem to be one or more of the religeous branches/sects/groups fighting a more local battle (sometimes with national objectives). They are no longer one military combatting another country's military. Basically groups of varying size occupying buildings or collections of buildings, often around a particular one (e.g. shrine in Najaf) creating strongpoints that are then attacked by the military.

Looking at it from outside the box, could not comparrisons be made between these and what happened in Texas? Post-war Iraq can possibly be catagorised as a civil conflict made up of a series of "Waco style events". Certainly from a tactical perspective rather than strategic.

I am suggesting this as a hypothetical look rather than "this is what is", but also that often interpretation is hard (in the case of JT's claims/statements) to do because mostly it is from the analysts point of view rather than truly objective. This is not a criticism of the analysis in either direction, more a case of "we don't know what we don't know".

Hope that makes some sort of sense

Originally posted by whita
Welcome to my first ATS post
nip>
Looking at it from outside the box, could not comparrisons be made between these and what happened in Texas? Post-war Iraq can possibly be catagorised as a civil conflict made up of a series of "Waco style events". Certainly from a tactical perspective rather than strategic.
nip>
Hope that makes some sort of sense

Sure it make sense.
But it's not what JT was talking about:
JT> There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005 (Note: later corrected to 2004). That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.

As you can see he speaks IN the USA.

JT1>What would you say to any world leaders who might be reading this right now?

Revel in your confidence today because you will not win tomorrow.


Easy one. A sure guess.

JT2>Does the continuing conflict between Arabs and Jews have anything to do with the upcoming war?

Yes.

This one is even easier.
The world has became so little that you are affected by anything that happens in the world.

JT3>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.


This one explains Israel/arab middle East relation a little better.
The US civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.
We will see what happens before the end of the year.

JT4>Does anything happen in the year 2012? I've heard stories about the world ending.

In my 2012, I was 14 years old spending most of my time living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida. The civil war was in its 7th year and the world war was three years away. Yes, there are unusual events in 2012 but they do not cause the world to end.
Unfortunately, I have decided not to discuss events that you or I can do anything about. It is important that they be a surprise.


This is an answer for the "2012=end of the world" theory.
Also is the answer of a careful time traveller that do not want to disrupt the timeline.
Finally is also the answer of a fake timetraveller that cannot discuss the recent future.
You chose.

JT5>How and why do the Arabs Jews become entangled in the civil war of the U.S.A?

They are not directly involved but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.


Again not verified.
We will see next year (or the end of this one).

JT6>Why are you so interested in the Constitution?

After the war, the United States had split into five separate regions based on the various factors and military objectives they each had. There was a great deal of anger directed toward the Federal government and a revival of states rights was becoming paramount. However, in their attempt to create an economic form of government, the political and military leaders at the time decided to hold one last Constitutional Congress in order to present a psychological cohesion from the old system.

During this Congress, the leaders discovered and decided that coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.



The underlined sentence is sadly true.
The rest is, of course, beyond any check.

JT7)The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.


Again, cannot be verified yet.
I assume it will be safe for us to see the first months of the civil war.

JT9>Can you give us some personal stories of your past?


I was born in 1998 so I do share some childhood memories with all of you. I remember going to Disney World at Christmas and I remember going to the beach in Daytona. When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.


Again cannot be chacked now.

JT10>John says the civil war leads to the world war in 2015. The civil war lasts for ten years?

It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics). Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict. The first U.S. civil war lasted 4 years and the English civil war lasted 6. How long is too long?


Again an hint about the civil war. It is an unrest for 4 years of "Waco-like events".
We will see...

P11> Your enemy was in the cities. Was the President in 2005 also on the enemy side? How did you feel personally about the President then?

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.


We will see if the "leader" of the USA will drive policies that will hurt the Bill of Rights, during his 4 years.

P12>Does China have a manned space program between 2001 and 2036?

I believe they are pretty close to putting a man in orbit. It shouldn't surprise you if they do that soon.


Well this one is a clear hit.

P12>Your prediction of (national politics) pending disintegration, beginning in three short years, is impossible.


Have you see the documentary on Waco? Just for argument's sake, what do you think would happen if information were discovered that confirmed the worst accusations made against the law enforcement officers there? Would you hope nothing?


This one a clear miss.

P13>What kind of people will be the ones least trustworthy?


The people with the most to lose if the world changes, Camel through the eye of a needle?



This is easy and it can fit most of the leaders/rich persons you do not like.

Some tought to ponder about:

I have read the titor History and the original posts h e made (you know the whole enchilada!)

Mi thoughts are.

He is not very smart, he had no real education since he was running in his infancy /youth.
Most of the info he has is quite recen (he was in th e university -he says).
He did not have access to a lot of world events and his info is patchy at best.

NOWTHE BIG PART..PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION AND IN JT SHOES

(disclaimer: i do not say you believe him)

You return to do something important and have contact with the world (AS BEFORE) what yu remember the most are events that lead to your present "worldline"
(example: you go back to July 2001 what would you do?
Now go back further..... 1961 try to stop NAM because you know is going to be a huge masacre and lost anyway right?....

Also you know that telling this you are disrupting "THIS" worldline so you do no give too many especifics, also he sias a lot of times that people doesnt care so they will not change anyways (and this thread proves it)

So basically this "other" worldline may or may not have his "specificts about history" but maybe he kept to himself info that might REALLY convince ANYONE (example: The president of bal bla bla is going to be killed in Jan 2002), that would be uncontestable. Maybe he chosse to give "hints" and those who are gulible or easy to convince would follow (or read in beetween the lines if you prefer) will adapt to his "future".

Basically the next Election (if there is an election) will be 48/52 at best the USA is divided like never before dont you think thats a nice recipe for trouble?

I have an attitude of wait and see but I have stopped ating fast food I just consume Meat I know here it came from, maybe is too late and I ma already infected, but do you seriously think any goverment would admint of poisoning millions....?

May be the Picture is fake as a 350 dollar bill, but better ask if I wait and things start to come true WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE ME?

JT14>Will you readily be able to identify the enemy?


They will be the ones arresting and holding people without due process.


If any fellow American was asked where this would happen, before 9/11, they could chose a lot of countries, but USA.
Now we all know that, regardless you think they are guilty or not, a lot of people were arrested and hold in prison without due process in USA.
And this was simply unthinkable 3 years ago.

JT15>You say you don't want to effect anything by giving information but you could change this worldline just by talking about the war, or anything for that matter.


I don't believe that knowing a possible future makes it happen. You are capable of changing your worldline for the better right now. None of the things I have said will be a surprise. They were set in motion ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?


Unsettling.
So far no nuclear weapons found in Iraq, but almost anyone did think Saddam had them in 2000/2001.
One more proof he is not from future (unless we found them in the next years, but it's unlikely).
Used to make everyone accepting the next war, could be a wild guess, but almost happened.