It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Meier versus Titor

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I was doing a little reading up on Billy Meier, when I came across an excerpt from his newest book "And still they fly".

I was a little shocked to see how similar one of his predictions was to the infamous John Titor's own predictions (or version of the world).

Billy Meier
Yet the misery on earth will continue, as two terrible civil wars will break out in America, whereby one will follow the other. Afterwards, the United States of America will break apart and deadly hostility will prevail among her, which then leads to the division into five different territories and it cannot be prevented that sectarian fanatics will play a dictatorial role.

John Titor
The United States is still a representative republic in 2036 but it was touch and go for a while. After the war, the U.S. had divided into 5 general areas based on their economic and defensive strengths.

Is one copying from the other, are they one and the same person or do they truly prophecise America's and the worlds future?



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
The NWO is a fact of our reality. They both forecast it, because it's really happening. I believe Billy Meier, and almost believe Titor. However, in the case of Titor, it could be just an educated guess, based on Meiers own predictions, or perhaps an insider. Meier on the other hand has a 100% record of successful predictions.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Hmmm Is meier real? Is titor? I doubt it.
Sounds like a flock of ducks to me
QUACK QUACK QUACK



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Hmmm Is meier real? Is titor? I doubt it.
Sounds like a flock of ducks to me
QUACK QUACK QUACK


Well, I can neither confirm or deny how real either are, I believe they are as real as you are, in as much as you post on threads and have opinions.
As to how much truth has been spoken by either, thats down to your own interpretations and world view.

Whether they are from the future, receive visits from Aliens or are just hoaxers, the subject they prophecise cannot be ignored given the present world climate.

Quackatcha...!!

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Koka]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Hmmm Is meier real? Is titor? I doubt it.
Sounds like a flock of ducks to me
QUACK QUACK QUACK


I think I hear the same flock flying overhead....



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Mwm1331 & Gazrok
You may mock all you wish.

I have not said myself that I believe in either of the aformentioned persons fantastical claims.

The point you so blatantly miss is with regards to the same prophetic statements.

Now, If you are unable to differentiate between the two, you're best not posting your one line replies, so turn round, pick-up your crayons and continue practicing your names.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Koka]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Meant no slight on you, nor did mwm1331 from appearances, but at Meier and Titor... (why so defensive?)

As for prophecy, a broken clock is right twice a day... For every correct prediction, there are many more incorrect ones....


*goes back to scribbling with his crayons*



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Meant no slight on you, nor did mwm1331 from appearances, but at Meier and Titor... (why so defensive?)

As for prophecy, a broken clock is right twice a day... For every correct prediction, there are many more incorrect ones....


*goes back to scribbling with his crayons*


Defensive, cos' I was looking for constructive input, and take those crayons out of your mouth.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Uhh koka I'm not eating my crayons I'm eating my paste!



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Is one copying from the other, are they one and the same person or do they truly prophecise America's and the worlds future?


I think you've got it right the first time... Since Billy came before Titor, I'd say Titor copied it off of Billy.

Question for Billy, how would we have TWO Civil Wars? Not to mention, the fact that even ONE could never succeed... Sorry, but all the conspiracy nuts and militiamen in the world aren't going to succeed against the NWO commanding US troops. Any civil war would be squashed asap. That is why this isn't prophecy, it's sci-fi.

*spits his crayons out*


SMR

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I may be not looking at this right,but how could Titor copy this prophecy from Meier when this book is new?The date of the publication is 2004.
Did Titor not say this back in 2001?

Correct me if Im wrong.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I'm inclined to think that if there's any copying involved that it's "Titor" copying Billy, since either way you slice it -- Titor's from the future (which I am not inclined to believe), or from now -- he's still born a long time after Mr. Meier, and given the trouble Mr. Titor took to appear to fit in with the various conspiratorial threads running around the interent, I would guess he'd wind up at least familiarizing himself with Meier, also.

That being said: the 5-way split actually does make a lot of sense if you take the trouble to map out how the union would break down; you've got 3 geographically-separated major states--California, Texas, and Florida--the northeast corridor, and the northern midwest. So, in the event that the US was splitting apart, it's not hard to see it breaking down like this:

A) Northeast corridor: New England, maybe as far south as annapolis, possibly as far west as chicago, although that's pushing their luck
B) Southeast: essentially Florida's sphere of influence, probably north to whereever A) stops and then west until whereever Texas's sphere of influence starts
C) Greater Texas: Texas, plus New Mexico, maybe parts of Colorado and Utah, also possibly Oklahoma and Arkansas
D) Greater California: California, possibly the rest of the west coast + Alaska, maybe stuff east of the rocky mountains like Nevada and Arizona, or parts thereof
E) The Norhtern Midwest: everything else, really, that's not in A)-D).

It's really easy to see this if you draw it out on a map: you've got the 3 majorly-influential states evenly spread out along the bottom of the map, one major sphere of influence in the northeast, and lastly the leftover region in the midwest. In such a scenario, it's also not hard to see Titor's claim of a capital in Omaha (I think that's right, I'm not really into Titor) playing out, because the midwest region'd be too big for any of the other 4 to decisively hold, but it's the only domestic agricultural region capable of feeding the other 4 regions if our economy craps out to the point we can't easily be importing food.

So, the point is if you're going to assume the US falls apart into a bunch of warring (or at least rivalrous) territories, then the 5 above seem reasonable, and so it's not impossible that Meier and/or Titor arrived at them independently by trying to come up with plausible-sounding prophecies. Has anyone here read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? It's postapocalyptic fiction set in North America a few hundred years after a nuclear holocaust, and I remember it had some kind of similar division of the country into a bunch of subcountries; there's probably also a lot of "alternate history" fiction that's thought this through in better detail, I hope, and any of those kinds of work could be a similar source for Titor's predictions (and maybe even for Meier, I'd have to check the dates).

One last aside:

gazrok: agreed on the 2 american civil wars thing -- one would be more than enough in my lifetime. There's a bit of a flaw in your reasoning though: if the new civil war is a rehash of the old civil war, with some of the states (trying to) pull out of the union, they'll get slapped down really quick, I'm sure, but if the new civil war is some kind of guerilla war than I'm not so sure the US's military translates into much of anything.

If what you've got is essentially some kind of insurgency or guerillas mixed in with the ordinary populace, it'll be hard to use our fancy planes and bombs on the rebels, because the collateral damage would be enormous; moreover, even though most of the likely rebels--either the militia types or a resurgent weather underground type of movement--would be poorly trained vis a vis even a standard army grunt ( and would be pitiful compared to a marine, let alone a green beret/seal/what have you), if the rebels can blend easily into crowds they'd wind up always having the advantage of surprise, and thus always being able to draw first blood; in that scenario, also, the advantage goes to the rebels, despite the far superior training and quality of the US troops.

If the rebels were to win a war, it wouldn't be a military victory so much as a hearts-and-minds victory, like this:

a) rebels blow something up
b) US retaliation overreacts messily, angering non-rebel populace
c) repeat

until the populace is more sympathetic to the rebels than to the US; in that case, what might emerge is some kind of negotiated settlement or truce, as per what's still going on in Northern Ireland. Granted, that's not going so well, but for the IRA and its supporters being at the negotiating table is a lot better than not being there, and definitely the IRA never had any chance of a military victory over the rest of the UK.

I think this scenario would make for good sci-fi (or "alternate history" fiction I guess, I don't read a lot of fiction), but I'd hate to live through it or anything similar; thankfully, though, I'd rate the actual odds pretty low (I think I'm more likely to win publisher's clearinghouse than I am to see an organized insurgency within the US during my lifetime).



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

If what you've got is essentially some kind of insurgency or guerillas mixed in with the ordinary populace, it'll be hard to use our fancy planes and bombs on the rebels, because the collateral damage would be enormous; moreover, even though most of the likely rebels--either the militia types or a resurgent weather underground type of movement--would be poorly trained vis a vis even a standard army grunt ( and would be pitiful compared to a marine, let alone a green beret/seal/what have you), if the rebels can blend easily into crowds they'd wind up always having the advantage of surprise, and thus always being able to draw first blood; in that scenario, also, the advantage goes to the rebels, despite the far superior training and quality of the US troops.


You've just described Iraq.

Different story here though. Unlike Iraq, the people here are all in databases, etc. Very difficult to be anonymous. You can't just blend into the crowd. You can't have a job, etc. without documentation. Not so in Iraq, where it's very easy to do this. The resistance would be unfunded, disorganized, and eventually obliterated, and in much shorter order than we will do the same to insurgents in Iraq. Such a civil war here would be over almost before it started. Not to mention a better chance of fellow citizens ratting on resistance members here. A rebel in America would have no means of support, nowhere to hide, and nowhere to run, it would almost be an exercise in futility.

May be a more recent Meier book, but the prophecy is much older than Titor's if I'm not mistaken....could be though...either way, I think it's one copying the other, and building on it.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You've just described Iraq.
Different story here though. Unlike Iraq, the people here are all in databases, etc. Very difficult to be anonymous. ...either way, I think it's one copying the other, and building on it.
[edit on 20-10-2004 by Gazrok]


Yes, but you would also be asking American soldiers to fire on fellow Americans. In the Civil War, members of the existing Army went to both sides.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Heres something no ones taken into account. If the US went into civil war, it would be our most vulnerable point in history. Realizing how many countries want to invade us now, why wouldnt they then? The country wouldnt be devided up among americans, it would be over run and devided up among other countries. Who would stop them?

Why is this in the alien/ufo section anyway?

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Delirious]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Yes, but you would also be asking American soldiers to fire on fellow Americans. In the Civil War, members of the existing Army went to both sides.


A valid point, but only one side controls the satellites, airstrips, support centers, etc. for the equipment of modern warfare, and again, that is why the rebel opposition would lose.... There's always a possibility I guess, but such a scenario today, versus a time when we fought with swords, rifles, and cannons, is definitely apples and oranges....



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
None of them mensioned the 911... I think, this explains everything..! No reason to believe in either of them...



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
is almost the end of the 2004 and i don't see any sings of a civil war, i don't think that's gonna happen any way
let's see after the elections....



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
~~~

In other internet circles...thr general consensus is that the great majority of psychics, remote viewers, mystics, seers,...TELL OF NOT BEING ABLE TO CONNECT OR SEE BEYOND A 2012=2013 VOID...BLANK SECTION OF TIME.

It seems both Titor & Meier were unaffected...unlike our contemporaries & peer group.

~~~

BTW~IF a civil war were to 'throw-back' technology & such..wouldn't the land of Michigan be a more practicle, easily defended FORTRESS?!

All the 'power points' (5 i believe), you theorized, would continue to do well...if the same levels of infrastructure and technology and resources were as accessible POST-CIVIL WAR...which I doubt they would be!
In a Post conflict, war ravaged land, decimated by the missle arsenals, all the fuel facilities, generating plants, armories etc etc would be in ruins...the survivors would seek a new promise land, reliant on an agrarian society a city state like a Manhatten Island would only be a stop-over oasis...

just tossin out a few memes



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
There isn't even any need to talk about, it's just a mess. They never travelled in time, nor were they informed. It's a question, whether they exist(ed) at all, or it's just the fairytale of some netbuffs...?!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join