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.


The Real John Titor - Hoaxhunter

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:23 AM
I've noticed no one in this thread is arguing anything other than what has been said in the thread proving they haven't watched the 40 minute video. I know it's an ordeal, but just consider how long it took to make those 40 minutes.

In this world of soundbytes you want me to go John Titor = So and so. I don't enjoy spelling out the obvious to those who are disinterested to begin with.

Some interesting developments have taken place since I posted the video, but I will keep this information.

I've been on the case since 2004, I posted an article on my first investigation on September 25th 2004, but none of you would be interested in that.

Have a great day.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by Razimus

If you read my post, you will notice I did indeed watch the video, as much as I could anyway.

I'm sorry for my harsh criticism, but I just gave my honest opinion.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:03 AM
For those who don't want to login to a gmail/youtube account you can download the pdf here:

or here:

If I were to watch the video, I wouldn't be convinced either, if I only watched the first 20 minutes that is, if I watched the 2nd 20 minutes I would be convinced, but it's more than swaying people this way or that, it's about the truth. I'm 100% confident the truth can be heard, seen, read in the content of the study I conducted which can be seen in the video and companion documents.

If I were a mathematician & linguist which I'm not I would say the chances of the quotes, words & writing styles matching up would be astronomical, 1 out of 1,000,000,000. Adding the variable of the quotes belonging to someone close to the official spokesman for the 'time traveler', the odds would increase astronomically, 1 out of 100,000,000,000. In all honesty we need an expert to see this data, and give their expert assessment, but even the layperson can see the chances are very unlikely.
edit on 23-4-2013 by Razimus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by Razimus

As I said, (one of) the flaw(s) in your logic is that you seem to think if you don't use a word yourself (as pretty much stated by you in the video), then it is not common, you repeat this several times with various actually quite common words.

You could make the comparison with tens, if not hundreds of thousand people.

I will download the document and give them a read, to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have a feeling my opinion will remain the same.

ETA: I would like to point out for the record, I remember reading the original JT posts back towards the start of the millennium, I wasn't convinced he was for real.
edit on 23/4/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:57 AM
I watched the whole thing the first time I posted.

Originally posted by Razimus
If I were a mathematician & linguist which I'm not I would say the chances of the quotes, words & writing styles matching up would be astronomical, 1 out of 1,000,000,000

You can't really say that whilst claiming that you're not a linguist or mathematician whilst also claiming your critics are not able to have opinions because they don't hold these qualifications either.

If I gave my CV, if it was particularly impressive to you, would you then listen? And yet you yourself are without such a related body of work or resume and are expecting people to take you at face value.

You couldn't actually (IMO in my opinion as a qualified homeless person using a borrowed computer) state the chances of the quotes matching up as a probability. You could perhaps give the probability of your method being accurate, and I guarantee you it would being up false positives even in controlled testing.

I watched. I read. If I haven't prove otherwise.

Constructive suggestions:
* You haven't defined your terms. What does 'uncommon' mean in this context? Why is it 'uncommon'?
* You haven't defined the properties of your dataset (how large are they? how many words do they contain?)
* Your findings are contained within your preface and are not tabulated or listed in an easy to read form
* Your method is also within your preface
* You have not explained why or how you chose the datasets you did
* You do not have a comparison dataset(s) (what if you compared another IT blog to Titor's writings?)
* You define some words as being uncommon but then refer to them as 'uncommonly' shared (You mean 'uncommon' shared words? And why are these terms uncommon? Some are certainly not. )

Google example:
"it is a snapshot of the"
About 14,600,000 results

You certainly have one or two points but the majority of these are unrelated to your study. Its been well known for a while now that the Titor writer knew or likely worked within the computer industry, and what you've presented is a possibility ... but this study is not 100% truth or proof.

Feel free to continue to believe I'm incapable of reading / watching a video, but I'm mostly trying to be helpful.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in