"Why does John care if we like Ruskies?" A re-examination of the John Titor story

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It is generally agreed that the John Titor story is an elaborate and imaginative hoax, and the evidence certainly does seem to point this way. Two brothers living in Florida (one who is an aspiring writer and owns the John Titor trademarks, and another who was aware of the IBM 5100/Unix 2038 issue) are often identified as the hoaxers.

I would like to offer an alternative explanation: That the actual John Titor(s) remains unidentified, and that these two individuals (Larry and John Rick Haber) merely capitalized on the already existing hoax in hopes of profiting from it.

So, if you're a fan of the John Titor story, or merely enjoy a good yarn, I encourage you to stick around; and ponder with me, this essential question: "Why does John care if we like Ruskies?"

--------

I have always felt that there was an inimitable quality present in Titor's posts that spoke of unconscious authenticity, rather than willful creativity. Specifically interesting to me were the way he used language, his self-described philosophical and political views, his attitude in response to certain types of questions, and the subtle presence – in everything he wrote – of a strongly-engrained historical world view consistent with the life experiences he describes. There is a combination of attitudes, values, and beliefs expressed subconsciously in his writing that appears, upon deep reflection; organic, complex, and authentic.

As a first example of what I'm talking about, I draw your attention to the following posts:

07 November 2000 21:23
There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe . The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska.

13 December 2000 12:44
You are also correct but I want to add a twist to your thinking. Russia's enemy in the United States is not you, the average person. Russia's enemy is the United States government.

08 February 2001 09:40
Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack.

On multiple occasions, over the course of several months, John Titor took the time when answering questions to remind the reader that from his perspective, Russia was a close friend and an ally of the United States. This consistency is not unusual in and of itself, but John's insistence on repeatedly clarifying this point (even as he let other anachronisms and misconceptions slide) indicates to me that he felt very strongly about it. The language he uses when explaining this point is strangely pedagogic in tone, and I suspect it may have been inherited from a teacher or professor. Did "John" take 'Russian Studies' courses as an adult?

If Russia did in fact, as a result of circumstance, become future-revolutionary America's ally and biggest trading partner, it would make sense for this new relationship to be cemented by organized cultural exchange and learning. Most Americans in our time are ignorant of Russian history, politics, and culture, but that would need to change if America and Russia became allies and close trading partners. Children in Titor's time would probably learn about Russia in Social Studies from a young age, and heavy emphasis would be placed on the value of the Russo-American relationship. (In much the same way, imagine, that the U.S.-Canada relationship is described in American and Canadian schools today.) Titor, already an adult and a war-veteran by this time, would be a university student when the intercultural sharing reached its early peak, and would undoubtedly have taken some kind of course (or its future equivalent) in Russian history or culture.

I'm sure you've all noticed that it's easy to tell when someone is talking about a topic they learned about in school. It's never hard to spot a first-year psych major on an internet forum, is it? There is an excitement present, and an aura of certainty about the topic comically divorced from their own limited experience. The point I am making is this: If John's familiarity with Russian history was the result of institutional learning, we would expect that same pedagogic vibe to be present in his own comments about Russia. And that's exactly what we see: You are also correct but I want to add a twist to your thinking. is exactly something a professor might say, and a student recycle, even years later, when talking to someone about the topic.

Now consider this: 12 February 2001, 23:51, John responds to the following post:

“John mentions the Big War(2015) was between the Cities of America (the enemy of John) and Russia, China, etc.(so not only do we have a civil war but now we have a war between the city folk and rural folk in the US, AND a world war...”

Hmmm, are you familiar with the Russian partisan movement in WWII?

Here John mentions Russia again, this time specifically mentioning a subject unknown to most westerners who have not studied Russian history at the post-graduate level. Not only that, but he is drawing on an incredibly subtle and thoughtful comparison of the two historical circumstances: That of the Russian partisan movement during World War II, and the American partisan movement during his own World War III. Given the details John describes about the U.S. civil war, the comparison is an interesting one, and would undoubtedly have been explored by academics in the aftermath of WW III. If it was thoroughly explored by academics, it may have come up in one of his undergraduate classes in comparative history or politics, making John's seemingly tangential comment here more reflective than it might at first appear. Why would John choose this moment to mention the Russian partisan movement of World War II, unless he had already made this rather deep connection before?

One way to solve this conundrum is to assert that the the team of hoaxers included a professor or researcher in Russian history. On the surface, this explanation seems to explain a great deal; John's knowledge of Russian history, his authoritative/pedagogic tone, and his interest in making connections to Russia. I can even imagine a talented hoaxer intuitively making the 'Russian partisan' connection if he happened to have recently studied Russian history. But I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a "team of hoaxers" consistently retaining this creative characterization over the course of four months, and hundreds of comments; imbedding this vague and hardly mentioned subtext into the story so consciously, and at every appropriate opportunity.

As far as I know, there is presently no evidence to suggest that either Larry or John Haber studied Russian history at the graduate or post-graduate level, and I am reasonably confident in asserting that either there was a third (perhaps the lead) individual involved in the Haber brothers' John Titor hoax, or that the hoax was not the work of these two men at all.

This is just one of the many reasons why I believe the John Titor story worthy of continued examination.

Thanks for reading.

-R




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
While you make a good point....What do you make of the inconsistencies of his "timeline"?

Many events he describes have not come to pass.

Alternate future / timeline?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
As a known skeptic on here, I must admit... I LOVED the john titor story. The original hoax thread? It made for a fascinating read, and every fiber of my being wants it to be true.

I will read your op in a little bit. After this UFC fight and I find out about ewok's mom on another thread

S & F
edit on 8-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
i know this is a conspiracy website
but serioulsy john titor shouldnt take up any space on here
its a complete fraud
or maybe im just in one of his different timelines
edit on 8-12-2012 by xszawe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
While you make a good point....What do you make of the inconsistencies of his "timeline"?

Many events he describes have not come to pass.

Alternate future / timeline?



Timeline inconsistencies are explained by the divergence in world-lines.

I could author an entire other post (and may) about why John Titor's "failed" predictions may turn out (in the historical light, many years later) to have been correct -- but I have no intention to do so here.

My personal belief is that the story is a hoax.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xszawe
i know this is a conspiracy website
but serioulsy john titor shouldnt take up any space on here
its a complete fraud
or maybe im just in one of his different timelines
edit on 8-12-2012 by xszawe because: (no reason given)


It is possible to learn from falsehoods and well as from truths.

There is a LOT that we can learn from the John Titor hoax -- simply because it is a hoax does not mean that we should cease talking about it. Many of the impressive aspects of the John Titor story occur also in other claims. Knowing that John's story is a hoax, we can use this experience to expose other, similarly detailed and impressive hoaxes, by making comparisons.

There are a LOT of odd coincidences, and seemingly authentic aspects of this story -- which we can use to explain similarly unusual and otherwise awe-inspiring serendipity in other accounts.

You know the old expression:

"We learn more from our failures than from our successes."

Ponder that, and consider the purpose of this website.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Thank you for posting this very interesting theory.
John wasn't favoring the "ruskies",just using a reference point.
There were some "anomalies" in the data,mostly in the CTC portion of it,but they finally got it straightened out.
So hopefully,from here on out,they won't stick out so much and they're data is more accurate.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
As a known skeptic on here, I must admit... I LOVED the john titor story. The original hoax thread? It made for a fascinating read, and every fiber of my being wants it to be true.

I will read your op in a little bit. After this UFC fight and I find out about ewok's mom on another thread

S & F
edit on 8-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)


I can empathize with you.

More, perhaps, than any other claim: The John Titor story has the "ring" of truth -- all of the elements we associate with authenticity are present, and reinforced.

It is, without a doubt, one of the most imaginative and exemplary hoaxes of our generation.

For this reason alone, I would reject out of hand, any suggestion that the topic is unworthy of discussion or consideration:

Should not we, who are in the business of conspiracy theories, devote significant time and effort to understanding the most successful hoaxes?

It seems to me a given that this should be the case.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
i'll ask bernard schnitzel if this john titor character is the real deal.

if john titor is real, then bernard schnitzel shouldn't have been banned. maybe john titor is actually bernard schnitzel.

john titor's time machine was a '67 corvette. i think i've seen that movie.

none of his predictions have even come remotely close. and russia, china and the u.s. have been in constant conflict since ww2.

if he predicted a black president named obama, then you can consider his gibberish worth a further look.

edit on 8-12-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

07 November 2000 21:23
There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.


Define “start of civil war”?

The start where the first shot is fired, or where the first political confrontations start that builds to civil war.

There is already a very heated political battle that is currently going on in the US. It could very easy be described as a cold civil war. We fought a cold war with Russia. They have infiltrated our politics and education system. They are waging that same form of cold conflict within the US against us. The question is, will it turn hot?

Will the civil war’s starting point be when it finally turns hot, or is it’s starting point somewhere earlier in time when the movement started that leads to it?

en.wikipedia.org...

The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 4, 2005


Just saying………..



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


I'm sorry, I must really be out of it. I did not realize a civil war started 7 years ago. Who is winning, how does the American Federal Empire fare so far in the war?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
John Titor , quite a touchy subject seeing as when I first read about him and went deeper into his story I felt fear funny to say but I was overcome with overwhelming fear that I couldn't even hear the word time traveler , but back to subject, on my believing side (because the other side doesn't) I feel that there's a chance he is real and because of his forewarnings the precise dates/ times could have been altered possibly due to some notability by a TPTB or high rank of some sort maybe even by "Time" itself. Also his nonexistent return was probably ambushed or he could have been killed. (Also to say I think the hardest part would be having come back to the past , if time travel were available only the highest would be allowed or they'd have an extreme close eye on it, I wouldn't think twice that he knew their would be consequences.so maybe if possible could it be he "made" a way to time travel without notice?)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
If the date of the civil war is the sticking point, I think of the Gulf Wars/Iraqi-Afghan wars.
Is someone from 2030-40 were to write about this time period, it would not surprise me to hear it
described as a 20 year conflict and counting.

When the first Gulf War 1991 started to when it was just No fly Zones and embargoes to hot wars again in 2001,
might seem as semantics to later generations who would not see the distinction particularly as the second war set has not had any particular nomenclature applied to it.

Whoever writes the history books of the future will be the ones to nitpick and decide if it's one long conflict or two or even three or will roll into an eventual third world war that might even be said to have started in 1991 for all we know.
When the 100 Years War started or even decades in, it would have been impossible to define as "The Hundred Years War".

I am on the fence about this whole thing. Mostly because I can't see a rationale for or anything to be gained by making this up.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

07 November 2000 21:23
There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.


Define “start of civil war”?

The start where the first shot is fired, or where the first political confrontations start that builds to civil war.

There is already a very heated political battle that is currently going on in the US. It could very easy be described as a cold civil war. We fought a cold war with Russia. They have infiltrated our politics and education system. They are waging that same form of cold conflict within the US against us. The question is, will it turn hot?

Will the civil war’s starting point be when it finally turns hot, or is it’s starting point somewhere earlier in time when the movement started that leads to it?

en.wikipedia.org...

The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 4, 2005


Just saying………..


Extactly.

Imagine the perspective of a man who grew up fighting on one side, which later won. Wouldn't the later regime seek to imply that its origins and struggles began at a much earlier date?

Aren't there groups in the US today that already consider themselves to be at war with the current government, and wouldn't they form the very heart of any resistance in the future?

The point I am making is that we could not, in any event, expect John Titor's description of his own history to be entirely aligned with our own perceptions of our current era: His perceptions would necessarily be colored by the ideological and partisan views of his own day -- and would therefor appear anachronistic to our own eyes.

We should not expect a person living in 2036 to give an account of our time which agreed with our own perceptions of our time. That would be absurd.

Thank you for your post!

-R



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
If the date of the civil war is the sticking point, I think of the Gulf Wars/Iraqi-Afghan wars.
Is someone from 2030-40 were to write about this time period, it would not surprise me to hear it
described as a 20 year conflict and counting.

When the first Gulf War 1991 started to when it was just No fly Zones and embargoes to hot wars again in 2001,
might seem as semantics to later generations who would not see the distinction particularly as the second war set has not had any particular nomenclature applied to it.

Whoever writes the history books of the future will be the ones to nitpick and decide if it's one long conflict or two or even three or will roll into an eventual third world war that might even be said to have started in 1991 for all we know.
When the 100 Years War started or even decades in, it would have been impossible to define as "The Hundred Years War".

I am on the fence about this whole thing. Mostly because I can't see a rationale for or anything to be gained by making this up.


Very well said.

The supposed "inconsistencies" and "failed predictions" in the John Titor story are all a matter of historical interpretation.

I am unbelievably pleased that so many posters have noted and elaborated on this point.

All of that being said, I still think the story is a hoax: I just think it is perhaps the best hoax in living memory.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
haber was an entertainment lawyer

his brother was a techie

they cooked up the story to sell it to hollywood

and by now we should have seen 108 waco like events and nukes from russia

lol

the best part of the story is how the devices would have weighed over a million metric tonnes and been hotter than the surface of the sun

lololol
edit on 8-12-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tru3NugMaster
John Titor , quite a touchy subject seeing as when I first read about him and went deeper into his story I felt fear funny to say but I was overcome with overwhelming fear that I couldn't even hear the word time traveler , but back to subject, on my believing side (because the other side doesn't) I feel that there's a chance he is real and because of his forewarnings the precise dates/ times could have been altered possibly due to some notability by a TPTB or high rank of some sort maybe even by "Time" itself. Also his nonexistent return was probably ambushed or he could have been killed. (Also to say I think the hardest part would be having come back to the past , if time travel were available only the highest would be allowed or they'd have an extreme close eye on it, I wouldn't think twice that he knew their would be consequences.so maybe if possible could it be he "made" a way to time travel without notice?)


I think your intuitive perception that there is more to the story than meets the eye is well founded.

Thank you for your reply.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
haber was an entertainment lawyer

his brother was a techie

they cooked up the story to sell it to hollywood

and by now we should have seen 108 waco like events and nukes from russia

lol


Clearly, you have not read the story very closely. There is no suggestion of a nuclear attack by 2012. Furthermore, a "Waco type incident" is open to interpretation - and there may be many similair incidents that occurred, but remain unknown to us at this time.

And if the sole purpose of the hoax was to sell the story, you would think that more efforts would have been undertaken in this area. The Haber brothers have made very little money off of the story thus far.

In any event, I do not claim that the John Titor story is true: Only that it was not authored solely by the Haber brothers, and that the real hoaxer remains unknown to this day.

Thank you for your post.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
While you make a good point....What do you make of the inconsistencies of his "timeline"?

Many events he describes have not come to pass.

Alternate future / timeline?


If you understood his theory at all, you would know that our time line was changed the instant he arrived here from the future. Our time line has now diverged away from the time line John Titor came from. But I also think it's a hoax... one of the best hoaxes ever though because it led to Steins;Gate, one of the best animes ever made.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
haber was an entertainment lawyer

his brother was a techie

they cooked up the story to sell it to hollywood

and by now we should have seen 108 waco like events and nukes from russia

lol


Clearly, you have not read the story very closely. There is no suggestion of a nuclear attack by 2012. Furthermore, a "Waco type incident" is open to interpretation - and there may be many similair incidents that occurred, but remain unknown to us at this time.

And if the sole purpose of the hoax was to sell the story, you would think that more efforts would have been undertaken in this area. The Haber brothers have made very little money off of the story thus far.

In any event, I do not claim that the John Titor story is true: Only that it was not authored solely by the Haber brothers, and that the real hoaxer remains unknown to this day.

Thank you for your post.


2012, 2015 whats the difference. I haven't been in a good titor thread in 3 years, sue me

that's your opinion. I think 90% of the people who followed this back in '05 agree it was the haber bros. I was in early on that and nothing has changed my mind since.

so if you are saying it was a hoax but the hoaxer hasn't been identified unless you have a name to put out there this is pretty much a waste of time

later
edit on 8-12-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join