EDIT: Due to oversight on my part, a claim was made that Titor predicted a cancellation of elections. This is not correct. What Titor predicted was a civil war close to the elections. So far there is no indication of a civil war. If no civil war materialises before Januarary 2004, John Titor would stand disproven.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

The 1% is just used so that if something doesn't happen, you can put the blame on the whole concept that his worldline is a bit different from ours. I agree with the whole hoax notion.

I've always been suspicous of Titor. I mean it's November 2004, and there are no signs of a 2005 civil war. This is just more proof that Titor is a fraud.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I've always been suspicous of Titor. I mean it's November 2004, and there are no signs of a 2005 civil war. This is just more proof that Titor is a fraud.

I'm very skeptical of the whole JT thing. That's not to say I don't find it very interesting...

There is ALOT of things you can toss into that 1% pile...

As for his "civil" war prediction...

I don't believe JT stated (exactly) when the "war" would start.
I also don't think he said the type of war it would be. You don't need bullets to wage war, ya know.

We have a whole year to see what happens...

That's funny. I thought he said the 2008 elections were canceled.

Another big one is his claims of Civil Unrest and indeed a Civil War in the US in 2004/2005. (He actually contradicts himself a few times, saying 2005 instead of 2004 and vice versa).
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.
and again:
This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.

Now, we haven't seen any Waco type events so far. Nor any Civil Unrest leading up to this coming election.


Another large thing with all of Titor's comments and predictions. Is that he never once mentioned 9-11, the Bali Bombing, the Madrid Bombings, the Invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact nothing about the war on terror at all.

He does however comment on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (the Intifada started in September 2000, so that had already happened when he started posting). He claims this conflict has a hand in bringing the US into civil war. As it stands, this conflict has settled down somewhat, and there are far far greater international issues that affect the US.



Now, why would Titor post a fake picture of his 'Time Machine' in action?
Why would he be wrong about the start of a Civil war in the US?
Why would he not mention the War on Terror or any of the attacks/invasions?

Simply put, because his story is a hoax. A quite well researched and executed hoax. But a hoax nonetheless. My guess is he didn't click about the light-bending picture (or perhaps didn't notice the error). He was guessing about the Civil war. At the time there was a big fuss about the 2000 US elections, (he hinted that Florida's votes would be discounted at one stage). He timed the 'civil war' to start around the next US elections. Fairly safe guess at the time because it was still 4 years down the track. He didn't mention the War on Terror because he didn't know, he, like the rest of us, didn't see it coming.

What other errors and inconsistencies are out there in Titors posts? This is just from a cursory look.

This was also posted by Kano,use the search option nubs


It has already been proven;YES!THIS IS A DAMN HOAX!

[edit on 2/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

iTS TOO SOON to tell about civil unrest...thousands of votes are missing from south florida, this might be the start. Its heavy democrat votes they're missing . My predictions are right again, i always said Bush would win under suspicious circumstances again.....

I think a US civil war is a likely possibility, but would only be precipitated from the enforcement of martial law. However, Titor explcitly mentioned a civil war leading up to elections, that has not happend.

Could he have meant that if Kerry wins todays election, that Bush will not hand over his presidency in January, and thus a technical cancellation of elections?

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

I thought he said it was going to hit the fan after the elections. I don't recall him saying anything would happen before the elections. He said it would happen in late 2004 or early 2005 and he couldn't remember exactly when.

Ok, a US civil war would be pretty major in history, and it's not like i was hundreds of years ago in his supposed time line. Why wouldn't he remember the details, could it be that he's a fraud, I think so.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Could he have meant that if Kerry wins todays election, that Bush will not hand over his presidency in January, and thus a technical cancellation of elections?

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Yeah, i was just about to point that out indigo child, that is still quite a possibility, two disputed elections in a row, bound to get most people riled.

I think he's bogas too.

However, if he is for real then I could see where he could have been mistaken. According to him it was a crazy time.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Could he have meant that if Kerry wins todays election, that Bush will not hand over his presidency in January, and thus a technical cancellation of elections?

That is not a decision left to the President. If Bush does not win re-election and refuses to leave the White House upon Kerry's inauguration, he'll be removed as a trespasser.

We're talking about the United States, not Panama.

It could still be. All of the results are not in and if Bush wins do you think that will be the end of any chance for civil unrest. No.

Now we have to run the risk of a terrorist attack because Bush will be in office. Opps I mean if Bush is not in office.

If he's in office we are all safe right? Or is our security in the hands of AQ? Hmmm.. I'm confused.

Originally posted by evecasino
It could still be. All of the results are not in and if Bush wins do you think that will be the end of any chance for civil unrest...

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here...

My take on the elections, goes like this.
If Bush wins we are certain to hit Iran, Syria, and/or others in the next few years.
If Kerry wins, we are still going to smack-up the middle east but I think he will buy us a few years. (5-7 at most).

It's all a question of which is the lesser evil, go to war now and be done with it. Or, wait a few years and hope it's not made any worse by waiting...

The US won't go into a civil war any time soon. Currently most Americans such as my self are too laid back (lazy) to go for civil war.

That is not a decision left to the President. If Bush does not win re-election and refuses to leave the White House upon Kerry's inauguration, he'll be removed as a trespasser.

We're talking about the United States, not Panama.

They were discussing this on the news a while ago. They said, that if Bush was involved in an ongoing war in Iraq, or something else, then Kerry would have to wait. However, it seems like Kerry winning, from the current exit polls(197 vs 112) looks more and more unlikely.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

After re-reading Titors predictions, I have not found anywhere where he said the US elections will be cancelled, thus I retract my claim, that he has been disproven.

He said civil wars will break out near the elections in 2004. This means, if nothing happens until January 2005, then he was clearly wrong.
I do feel that the possibility of civil war before 2005 is very real.

A woman representing Florida on the news on BBC was talking very angrily about the election problems and the people being denied the rights to vote etc. Can that provoke a civil war?

I think whether a civil war is going to break out towards the end of the year, hinges on what happens in the elections today.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]