Hurricane Katrina ties it all together (Civil War)

[Knowledge]

No, this is clearly nothing like a Waco-event. We can begin to count the ways:

1) It was one guy, not a whole host of people.
2) He was not holed-up with guns and other armaments in a sealed compound.
3) He was not holding children as human shields.
4) There was no religious issue involved.
5) It was not an FBI decision to "go in" on this guy. Rather it was the decision of a few cops who may, or may not have had good reason.

All good points. I guess that I can now take my second option, which stated that this was a sign of us being lead into a Waco-type era. However, the main point I was going towards was that Waco was a governmental group vs. the people. I'm thinking that this situation will become a lot more serious as time goes on, up to the point where the fighting will become classified as a Civil War.

 

[Observer]

Agreed in principle, but again, any comment is conjecture on what the original poster (JT) meant by "waco-type".

For instance, many people may consider a national guard chopper unable to land at a refuge centre because it is taking civillian gunfire, to be "waco-type", merely because it involves a civillian vs. military/law enforcement skirmish. I may be persuaded by this line of thought.


But if you take that initial leap, the beating in NO may also loosely qualify, as it involved law enforcement-civillian conflict. Its all down to perspective and conjecture to the posters words and how rigidly they are taken.

 

[RainmanTime]

but again, any comment is conjecture on what the original poster (JT) meant by "waco-type".

If you agree with this, as do I, then certainly you must see that the flipside is also true. IOW, it is nothing but speculation and conjecture by trying to "fit" events to Titor's vague statements, or claiming that events that do come to pass are in line with these vague statements.

RMT

 

[Demsys]

Re: Hurricane Katrina ties it all together (Civil

John Titor is the new Nostradamus. As always events are never predicted with any accuracy, and as always the events are usually trotted out as predictions after the event, if people wish to see things in the mundane then they will always make stuff it the 'facts'.
So, what am I rambling on about? Well, I agree with RMT.

 

[Observer]

Exactly. Thats my point.
Analysis of vague events or descriptions is not the way to debate this either way.

Many comments of users here fall into that trap.

I will say, that food for thought or conjecture is harmless when realised as such, but the flipside is that its not a valid way to debunk the same process. Such is the nature of conjecture, you're not argueing over whether these are "waco type events" you are instead argueing over what the poster meant by "waco type events" which is a VERY different thing.

 

[RainmanTime]

Exactly. Thats my point.
Analysis of vague events or descriptions is not the way to debate this either way.

Right! So we should stick to those elements of his "predictions" that are non-vague. That are explicit. IOW, those "predictions" that one could take literally, rather than figuratively. Correct?

Many comments of users here fall into that trap.

Glad you agree to this. I just like to challenge them right back on such posts by pointing out what Titor's literal words say. Would you agree that conjecture begins when one takes Titor's word anything other than literally?

I will say, that food for thought or conjecture is harmless when realised as such, but the flipside is that its not a valid way to debunk the same process.

That depends... and it depends especially upon the distinction between a person who conjectures what "Titor meant" by something, and a person who does not conjecture and simply interprets the Titor words literally. That is what I mean to do, and that is often the point of many of my rebuttals to people who claim to know what Titor meant. There is a difference here, and I would say it is a valid means to debunk a wild claim by showing that the LITERAL words written by Titor do not support their wild claim. I just like pointing those little factoids out.

Such is the nature of conjecture, you're not argueing over whether these are "waco type events" you are instead argueing over what the poster meant by "waco type events" which is a VERY different thing.

Again, I agree. Titor's Waco words were vague in one sense, as to defining what sort of event he meant. But he was literal in his statement that they would be happening at an approximate frequency of weekly.

I'm willing to focus on Titor's literal predictions for Civil War by 2005 (actually, he corrected himself and confirmed that his 2004 prediction was accurate, coinciding with the Prez election). I am also willing to focus on Titor's prediction of the "last OFFICIAL Olympics" being in 2004. The coming winter Olympics are certainly official...taking Titor's words literally.

What good is a man if you cannot trust his word? Answer: He is NO Good!

RMT

 

[Observer]

That depends... and it depends especially upon the distinction between a person who conjectures what "Titor meant" by something, and a person who does not conjecture and simply interprets the Titor words literally. That is what I mean to do, and that is often the point of many of my rebuttals to people who claim to know what Titor meant. There is a difference here, and I would say it is a valid means to debunk a wild claim by showing that the LITERAL words written by Titor do not support their wild claim. I just like pointing those little factoids out.

But as you can only assume that any post is literal until the poster confirms it, or that the literal interpretation conforms to your own, any analysis is based on your own inherent bias, and therefore no more valid than any analysis that chooses to assume the opposite of your stance.

I'm willing to focus on Titor's literal predictions for Civil War by 2005 (actually, he corrected himself and confirmed that his 2004 prediction was accurate, coinciding with the Prez election). I am also willing to focus on Titor's prediction of the "last OFFICIAL Olympics" being in 2004. The coming winter Olympics are certainly official...taking Titor's words literally.

Again, I highlighted the flaw in your argument here in a previous post which you chose to ignore. You are choosing to take a literal context that is based on your own interpretation. Even the Olympic Committees differentiate between The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics by nomeneclature and it should be noted that they refer to the Winter Olympics as "Winter Olympics" and Summer Olympics merely as "Olympics".

While there is no doubt that the Winter Olympics are offical Olympics, you are using pedantism to create a bias in your favour, which while literally correct, does not actually form any strong arguement and simply makes you seem desperate. If you wish to maintain reputable scientific imprtiality in your analysis, stick to facts and not resorting to such biases.

 

[MEM]

If you wish to maintain reputable scientific imprtiality in your analysis, stick to facts and not resorting to such biases.

I second that! Well said, Observer.

 

[RainmanTime]

But as you can only assume that any post is literal until the poster confirms it, or that the literal interpretation conforms to your own, any analysis is based on your own inherent bias, and therefore no more valid than any analysis that chooses to assume the opposite of your stance.

I don't agree. I do believe it is more valid because of the very fact that I am following the literal words. Anyone who relies on extending the literal meaning of the words is partaking in conjecture. I notice that you never answered my question. Do you think you could, so that I know if you agree with it? Here it is again:

Would you agree that conjecture begins when one takes Titor's word anything other than literally?

I'd like to know if you agree with this basic fact.

Again, I highlighted the flaw in your argument here in a previous post which you chose to ignore. You are choosing to take a literal context that is based on your own interpretation.

I did not ignore it. I simply dismissed it as not being in line with the literal words JT wrote. Again I must point out, and this is what you seem to ignore: The ONLY thing we have from the alleged John Titor are his words. He is too much of a coward to reveal himself and clarify what he "meant". As such, since his words are all we have, there is nothing technically or logically incorrect in taking them literally. Anyone who extends them beyond the literal is the one who is guilty of conjecture. Again I ask, do you not agree with this? It is quite a simple question.

Even the Olympic Committees differentiate between The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics by nomeneclature and it should be noted that they refer to the Winter Olympics as "Winter Olympics" and Summer Olympics merely as "Olympics".

So are you saying that if/when someone is awarded a medal in the coming winter olympics that it will not be official? Because that is the stance you seem to be arguing. I am taking the literal meaning of Titor's words (again, the only thing we have to analyze). That means if someone is officially awarded a medal in an Olympics any time after 2004, Titor's literal words are false.

I'd like your answer to my question above, as this will tell a lot about how you analyze words and approach the concept of conjecture.
RMT

 

[TimeNot_0]

Another one forming again this week!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=hurricanes&id=3540450

Also what about the Nazi march that ended in Toledo, Ohio over the weekend with a riot going on because about 20 people wanted to march as the National Socialists Party (Nazis, I guess) there Saturday, so the march ended before it started.

Quite a few videos were there:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

with a 8pm curfew all weekend now!
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051016/NEWS16/51016003

The videos were on the ABC13 news station for Toledo, but seem to be somewhere else today. Opps, wrong station: (ended up in Houstan ch. 13 instead of Toledo, Ohio)
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/

:eek:

 

[RainmanTime]

No answer to my question yet from "Observer". While we wait I thought I'd pass on the following 22 observations about 2 states. Please note I did not author these, they were sent to me. However, many of them are food for thought:

> Things noticed while watching media coverage of the recent hurricanes.

> 1. Texas: Productive industrious state run by Republicans.
> Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state run by Democrats.

> 2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect and evacuate
> themselves.
> Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect and evacuate them.

> 3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting
> their citizens and property.
> Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not
> protecting their citizens and property.

> 4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order.
> Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.

> 5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city.
> Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect
> themselves.

> 6. Texas: Local police watch for looting.
> Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.

> 7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters
> arrested.
> Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no
> arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.

> 8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane.
> Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.

> 9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding.
> Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to
> flood.

> 10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain.
> Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded
> area.

> 11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and
> water.
> Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water,
> do without it for the next 4 days.

> 12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State
> officials provide accessible distribution points.
> Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State
> officials prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice
> versa.

> 13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames
> Bush.
> Texas: Media can't find poor blacks in need of assistance, looking for
> something else to blame on Bush.

> 14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell
> residents to stay away until ready for repopulation, no interference from
> federal officials.
> Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, Mayor asks residents to return home
> as another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal
> officials.

> 15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime.
> Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no storm
> related deaths.

> 16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities
> outside the storm area.
> Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops,
> residents, and homes.

> 17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in
> recovery operations.
> Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from
> aiding in recovery operations.

> 18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing
> disaster areas.
> Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership,
> require federal government to manage disaster areas.

> 19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can't keep up with demand, some run out of gas
> on highway, need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives.
> Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails.
> Cars run out of gas at gas stations that can't pump gas. Gas in
> underground tanks mixes with flood waters.

> 20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger.
> Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.

> 21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on
> television with governor's backing and support.
> Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with
> violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who's
> responsible.

> 22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911
> calls from Louisiana citizens.
> Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring
> in Washington, it rings here at the local responders".

> What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on
> themselves and their own resources instead of calling for help from the
> federal government?

> Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days.
> Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.

RMT

 

[Observer]

Would you agree that conjecture begins when one takes Titor's word anything other than literally?

Conjecture begins when you form ANY interpretation of Titors posts, whether literal or not. So I agree with that statement in part. But please provide me with any reasoning as to why the interpretation should be soley literal? Did he state anywhere that he was post literal text book answers rather than his own opinion or information limited to his own knowledge or lack there of.
There is no statement to show either he did or did not intend literal meaninsg to his words, so your insistence on such, is basically a "fact" that you just made up.

Again I must point out, and this is what you seem to ignore: The ONLY thing we have from the alleged John Titor are his words. He is too much of a coward to reveal himself and clarify what he "meant". As such, since his words are all we have, there is nothing technically or logically incorrect in taking them literally. Anyone who extends them beyond the literal is the one who is guilty of conjecture. Again I ask, do you not agree with this? It is quite a simple question.

I have not ignored this. I am just not persuaded to be biased by his words in either way. If you wish to pick apart the facts of his science or the theories behind them, that is one thing. Trying to debunk an arguement on heresay is just plain ridiculous.

The most educated person in society, still speaks figuratively in relaxed surroundings. By your very arguement, all chirstians must take the Bible literally, as the only thing we have are the bibles words and any God behind it has not stepped forward to clarify the matter.

You also ignore the fact that any person can only answer a question to the best of their knowledge. Your posts seem to ignore this and assume the poster is infallible, or at least claims he is. Neither situation is the case.

All in all your kind of thinking (at least the one your portray, I can only take your words literally

), is illogical, unhelpful and doesn't really add anything to the arguement.

So are you saying that if/when someone is awarded a medal in the coming winter olympics that it will not be official? Because that is the stance you seem to be arguing. I am taking the literal meaning of Titor's words (again, the only thing we have to analyze). That means if someone is officially awarded a medal in an Olympics any time after 2004, Titor's literal words are false.

Can you show me where I argued that the Winter Olympics is unoffical? I made a point about nomenaclature. I pointed the difference in nomeneclature between winter and summer olympics. I also pointed that titor used the nomeneclature commonly associated with the summer olympics. Now it *could* well be that he spoke in a text book literal manner and that by "olympics" he meant all olympic events. On the otherhand it could be that he was using the common speak nomeneclature for the summer olympics and only meant that event.

Assuming either one of these cases to be fact immediately biases your arguement and thus renders it invalid as proof of anythings, from a scientific point of view.

In may prove it for you, in your head, but outside that domain, whatever way you want to dress the importance of literal or figurative or just plain inaccurate and ignorant speech, scientific argument can't be grounded on the foundation of an unprovable assumption based on the bias of the observer.(except perhaps some branches of quantum physics

hehe). Which is what you are doing.

 

[Darby]

Observer,

There is no statement to show either he did or did not intend literal meaninsg to his words

Well, let's try on these Titor statements and see if they give us any clue about how to interpret his words:

"My goal is not to believed and I submit that your life would not be any better (and perhaps worse) if you did believe me."

~John Titor


"I realize my claims are a bit ridiculous but my intent is not really to be believed."

~John Titor

" I don’t want you to believe me and it doesn’t affect me in the least if you did."

~John Titor

So, considering that he made the same statement on three different occassions, do we interpret his words literally or not?

 

[Darby]

Observer,

Can you show me where I argued that the Winter Olympics is unoffical? I made a point about nomenaclature. I pointed the difference in nomeneclature between winter and summer olympics. I also pointed that titor used the nomeneclature commonly associated with the summer olympics.

If I read your interpretation of this Titorism correctly, you're conjecturing that when he said that there would be no Olympics for forty years that he was limiting the statement to include only the Summer Games, not the Winter Games and that the Winter Games continued as scheduled? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If not, what are you conjecturing?

This is important.

If the Winter Games are cancelled will you count that as a "hit" for Titor's Predictions or discount it as "irrelevent" because he really meant the Summer Games - not the Winter Games?

I'm asking this because I brought up the issue of the Winter 2006 Olympics about two years ago. At that time, and really at no time since, has anyone balked at the idea that Titor meant the Olympics in general - Winter and Summer.

Well, not until now, that is, has anyone balked at the Winter Games.

It's only become a bit of an issue now that we are about 14 weeks from the opening of the Winter Games and there is no sign they will be cancelled.

This is the same thing that occured last Fall. According to Titor the Weekly Wacky Waco incidents were supposed to have begun "around the time of the (2004) elections". Nothing materialized. But he was reinterpreted in order to extend, not Titor's deadline, but posters' deadlines for the WWW incidents to commence.

Here we are a year later and, aside from not having the Titor Predicted civil disruptions in the Fall of 2004, we still haven't had a WWW incident. And according to the Titor Prediction we only have 26 months to go until 2008 by which time we are supposed to have been having such incidents frequently and at an ever accelerating rate which peaks at one WWW incident a week. This culminates, 26 months from today, in a full blown civil war.

I suppose that the historical relativists will continue to extend every missed deadline. But when we get to January 2008 and there are no WWW's and no civil war are the Titorites actually going to pray for some Divine Intervention so that it will all come true - including the 3 billion Crispy Critters? :D

 

[Darby]

Observer,

To continue the last post relative to the Winter v. Summer Olympics.

Let's look at what Titor actually said about the Olympics and why they were cancelled:

01/29/01 12:25

((Are the Olympics still being played in your time?))

As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004. However, it appears they may be revived in in 2040.

The reason for the cancellation is the result of the "many conflicts" around the world.

Now let's look at what he said 6 weeks before he made that post:

13 December 2000 12:44

(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

We have a problem. Western Civilization's stability collapses sometime during the next 10 weeks. Now if he didn't mean the Winter 2006 Olympics then Italy, in the middle of the collapse of Western Civilization, holds the Winter Games.

I think that it is reasonable to make the assumption that the collapse of Western Civilization would include a "few" conflicts and that the collapse just might cause Italy, busy with some internal security "issues", to cancel the Winter Games. And Titor didn't say that Western stability ws "shaky", "troubled", "conflicted" or "in trouble." He was specific - he said that it collapsed. Collapsed stability is chaos. Pretty easy to spot (just like a Waco incident or a Ruby Ridge incident is easy to spot).

Given the two Titor posts do you still think that it is reasonable to question Titor's "nomenclature".

This ends up with two more failed predictions central to the Titor Saga, unless the world seriously changes during the next 10 weeks. I've waited for five years. I suppose that I can wait a few more days.

My prediction: this too will be reinterpreted and the deadlines extended even though Titor said that the collapse occurs in 2004 before he said 2005. Just as people have quibbled over what a Waco Incident is they will quibble over what is meant by "the collapse of Western Civilization". They will also quibble over what "is" is.

When questioned about the discrepancy he made a point of being very specific in his correction that he meant 2005 (not 2004, 2006, 2007 or 2008).

Another Prediction: Western Civilization does not collapse by New Years Eve and the Winter Olympics are held in Italy this winter.

 

[RainmanTime]

Looks like Darby got to you before I could get home from school tonight. Thanks for that, Darby! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I'll ignore your polemics and baiting, and just focus on the issue of how we are supposed to compare Titor's predictions vs. the reality that shows up in our timeline.

Conjecture begins when you form ANY interpretation of Titors posts, whether literal or not.

No, clearly that is not globally true. That is because the need for interpretation is dependent upon the vagueness of any prediction. IOW, people are plenty capable of forming statements that are, indeed, literal and require no conjecture or need for interpretation. For example, Titor claimed the civil war started in 2004, then typo'ed (according to his own correction) and said 2005, but then re-affirmed the 2004 date when questioned again. These are actual years, no interpretation (or follow on conjecture required). No question of whether he meant "winter 2004" or "summer 2004". Furthermore, going literally by his words, he was wrong in 2004, and even if we are willing to stretch (and not take his words literally) he is running out of time to be correct in his prediction for 2005, NO MATTER THE INTERPRETATION. So you can see that your statement is not a global truth. I will give you; however, that your statement is true for any vague statements, which Titor seemed to invoked quite a bit.

But please provide me with any reasoning as to why the interpretation should be soley literal?

I've done it before but you do not address the point: Because this is the only way one can measure, with any sort of scientific accuracy, whether his predictions "came true". Without taking them literally, we descend into the re-interpretive cycle that Darby has pointed out. IOW, if you can't take his literal predictions literally (see date example above), then there is certainly no value in conjecturing, because the possible solution space is endless. If we don't take them literally, then they should be dismissed wholly... at least speaking from a scientific, rather than an entertainment, standpoint.

I am just not persuaded to be biased by his words in either way.

Wow. So are you telling me your are the first person to ever be free from bias? While you might never admit bias in writing or speech, I'd bet a trained psychotherapist might be able to uncover some inherent biases you have towards the Titor story just from your upbringing alone.

Trying to debunk an arguement on heresay is just plain ridiculous.

Who's trying to debunk his argument? Folks like myself and Darby are simply pointing out that Titor's literal words are not aligning with reality. Others are certainly free to conjecture, assume, and interpret what they think Titor "meant", but we only deal with the words that were written... and all the contradictions that go with them.

By your very arguement, all chirstians must take the Bible literally, as the only thing we have are the bibles words and any God behind it has not stepped forward to clarify the matter.

That is such an invalid comparision on so many levels, but let's address two: Neither myself nor Darby were around when the books of the Bible were written. Yet we were both here when Boomer was doing his thing. Second, the reason people find Titor's story so compelling is because in the big picture it is all plausible. Yes, it COULD have happened the way he said, and he certainly drew on information available in 2000-2001 to make it seem more plausible (i.e. Boomer knew about Mad Cow disease back then, so he wove it into his story, yet little to nothing was known about Bird Flu, so it is conspicuously absent from his story). Yet there are clearly passages in the Bible that are not even plausible to a scientifically-minded person. Ergo, no comparision.

You also ignore the fact that any person can only answer a question to the best of their knowledge. Your posts seem to ignore this and assume the poster is infallible, or at least claims he is. Neither situation is the case.

Again, this has absolutely no bearing on the issue unless I wish to conjecture about Titor. I am not doing that. I am only evaluating the words, not the person behind them or their lack of knowledge. He made predictions. I follow them literally, where possible, and history is the judge... not me!

All in all your kind of thinking (at least the one your portray, I can only take your words literally ), is illogical, unhelpful and doesn't really add anything to the arguement.

That would be a polemic intended to provoke anger, so I will ignore. But I will jab right back at you and tell you that your spelling leaves something to be desired, and is unhelpful.

I made a point about nomenaclature. I pointed the difference in nomeneclature between winter and summer olympics. I also pointed that titor used the nomeneclature commonly associated with the summer olympics. Now it *could* well be that he spoke in a text book literal manner and that by "olympics" he meant all olympic events. On the otherhand it could be that he was using the common speak nomeneclature for the summer olympics and only meant that event.

There's one more hand that you are omitting: It could also be that you are focusing solely on the word "Olympics" from his quote and not addressing the word that came before it: "official". Titor took the time to put that word in there in an attempt to convey meaning, and there is certainly meaning to that word when taken literally. If he was only using the casual reference of "Olympics" to mean "Summer Olympics", why did he need to add the word "official"? See, that is where conjecture begins and that is what I won't do. But another thing I won't do is ignore words that have meaning in an attempt to broaden the scope of what he "meant". He could just as easily written "no official summer or winter Olympics". Yet "official Olympics" clearly means any Olympic games that are officially held and result in official records.

Assuming either one of these cases to be fact immediately biases your arguement and thus renders it invalid as proof of anythings, from a scientific point of view.

Yes, that would be true if I were only analyzing the word "Olympics". Yet your argument (note spelling) falls apart once the word "official" is taken together with "Olympics". This is because it is a fact that BOTH the winter AND the summer Olympics are, indeed, official Olympic games. Nothing unscientific about that... it's merely following proper definitions.

scientific argument can't be grounded on the foundation of an unprovable assumption based on the bias of the observer.(except perhaps some branches of quantum physics hehe). Which is what you are doing.

Care to take that back now that I have pointed out your analysis (and assumption about what you thought I was assuming) is incorrect? It is certainly not an unproveable assumption that the winter Olympics are just as official as the summer Olympics. Again, don't confuse what I am doing as trying to interpret what Titor meant. I am only analyzing what he actually said, and I have given enough reason for why this is the only scientific approach you can take to pointing out where he was incorrect in his predictions. Once you cease taking his words literally, then it is just a story, and that certainly can mean anything to anyone.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Darby,

Another Prediction: Western Civilization does not collapse by New Years Eve and the Winter Olympics are held in Italy this winter.

Now those are some predictions that can be taken literally!

Can I count you in for the Titor Is BS New Years Day bash? I can send you an extra tube or two for your bike tires if you need them! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[Observer]

I did spell argument right once or twice in my post

, I'm putting it down to a bad repeated typo while posting at 3am /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (and while we're playing silly buggars, I could go find your nice post about how you'd never be so ignorant to attack someones spelling, but I'm not bothered really).

No, clearly that is not globally true. That is because the need for interpretation is dependent upon the vagueness of any prediction. IOW, people are plenty capable of forming statements that are, indeed, literal and require no conjecture or need for interpretation. For example, Titor claimed the civil war started in 2004, then typo'ed (according to his own correction) and said 2005, but then re-affirmed the 2004 date when questioned again. These are actual years, no interpretation (or follow on conjecture required).No question of whether he meant "winter 2004" or "summer 2004". Furthermore, going literally by his words, he was wrong in 2004, and even if we are willing to stretch (and not take his words literally) he is running out of time to be correct in his prediction for 2005, NO MATTER THE INTERPRETATION.

Which for me is 100 times more effective as an argument than your olympic bone that you harp on about. Yet you focus on that. Why?

The wooliness appears here when he apparently added the provisio of the word "around" or it happens gradually or some other such nonsense. At this point, people can come back and argue about what he really meant.

My point is. You are putting huge faith in throwaway comments. Why? If you are so engrained in the strength of science, why not go after JT where he really falls down.

So you can see that your statement is not a global truth. I will give you; however, that your statement is true for any vague statements, which Titor seemed to invoked quite a bit.

Yes, and again this is why your specific line of debate is pointless and pretty much at exactly the same level as the rest of the posters who believe he is the messiah, or whatever.

If we don't take them literally, then they should be dismissed wholly... at least speaking from a scientific, rather than an entertainment, standpoint.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

That is such an invalid comparision on so many levels, but let's address two: Neither myself nor Darby were around when the books of the Bible were written. Yet we were both here when Boomer was doing his thing. Second, the reason people find Titor's story so compelling is because in the big picture it is all plausible. Yes, it COULD have happened the way he said, and he certainly drew on information available in 2000-2001 to make it seem more plausible (i.e. Boomer knew about Mad Cow disease back then, so he wove it into his story, yet little to nothing was known about Bird Flu, so it is conspicuously absent from his story). Yet there are clearly passages in the Bible that are not even plausible to a scientifically-minded person. Ergo, no comparision.

But we're talking about literal words. The Bible analogy is correct if we are as you stated taking someone at his literal word. If you believe in the Christian God, then by your very argument (that how can you trust someone if you can't trust his word), he is untrustworthy, or at least, those who wrote the Bible (and hence those who the religion is based) are.

As for you being alive/around or not. Why does it alter things? Because you have hindsight and technology to see if the statements are true? Those who believed in the bible literally when it was written (and a good few millenia after) fell into the trap of taking it literally because the knew no better. You're falling into the same trap here.

Ok the scale of JT and God is an unfair comparison, but all I ask is that people stand back, look at the information and say "right, what can we unquestionably say is right or wrong without any of us putting or on spin on the ambiguity" and then starting the analysis.

Yet "official Olympics" clearly means any Olympic games that are officially held and result in official records.

Ok, let me try and put this into an anecdote. I was in a rural part of a southern US state a year or two ago and was quite shocked to discover there were people there who didn't know a "winter olympics" existed. They had always heard of the olympics, but assumed, because of lack of exposure to evidence to the contrary, that it was the sole event.

Now, if one of these people, in 20 years, were to travel back in time, no better informed and suggest that there were no official olympics, what does that actually mean to the outside observer?

Now, this may or may not be the case. But you have no evidence either way, so your argument is pretty much invalid as "proof" of anything.

 

[roorichard]

Ok, let me try and put this into an anecdote. I was in a rural part of a southern US state a year or two ago and was quite shocked to discover there were people there who didn't know a "winter olympics" existed. They had always heard of the olympics, but assumed, because of lack of exposure to evidence to the contrary, that it was the sole event.

Now, if one of these people, in 20 years, were to travel back in time, no better informed and suggest that there were no official olympics, what does that actually mean to the outside observer?

Now, this may or may not be the case. But you have no evidence either way, so your argument is pretty much invalid as "proof" of anything.

If these people were to travel back in time, first of all they wouldn't be your average time traveler. Therefore I highly doubt that they would be picked to go back in time. I believe that when someone is picked to do something as important as time travel, you are not going to go walking on the streets with a dart gun, shoot it at a crowd of people, have it stick on to someone and say "Hey, this is our man." /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif It's more so like our astronauts, you don't just pick anyone to go up into space.

My point here is that when picking on who goes where, you are NOT going to select someone that has no clue about technology in the world and continues to live in the past. And that's these people that obviously don't keep up with the world around them. Almost everyone that owns some sort of technology (let it be TV, Radio, Computer...etc) KNOWS that there are Winter and Summer Olympics at the least and again, you are not going to select a person of this caliber to travel back in time, right? I would hope not!! :D

You just need to realize that you are putting words into JT's mouth. Now don't get me wrong, words are supposed to be interpreted but when the words are "No official Olympics," that means ALL Olympics, not just Summer or Winter, are being referenced.

My final point is that even if JT was real (not that he is, just making a point), he seemed educated enough to know that there are two olympics, summer and winter.

 

[RainmanTime]

I did spell argument right once or twice in my post , I'm putting it down to a bad repeated typo while posting at 3am

You sound mysteriously like another poster I had discussions and disagreements with in the past. He always had a ready excuse, and it always seemed to be exhaustion and posting late at night. Trollface, are you back? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I could go find your nice post about how you'd never be so ignorant to attack someones spelling

Here's a good example of the difference of when you have to, or don't have to, take someone literally. I am still here to explain that this courtesy is reserved for people who don't throw polemical arguments at me intended to demean or belittle me. I can be civil if you can be too.

Which for me is 100 times more effective as an argument than your olympic bone that you harp on about. Yet you focus on that. Why?

Because history has already shown Titor's 2004 civil war prediction as false, and we are running out of time for 2005. So the reason I pick on the olympic bone is because it is the next chronological prediction that can be interpreted in a literal sense. IOW it is next on the docket for history to falsify.

My point is. You are putting huge faith in throwaway comments. Why? If you are so engrained in the strength of science, why not go after JT where he really falls down.

You are the one deeming the word "official" to be throwaway. It is my belief that this is your error. By not wishing to take his words literally, you leave the door of speculation open. I have gone after JT on other areas where he clearly fell down: How about the fact that he could never identify the metric which related to "percent divergence" of a worldline? A percentage is some of the most simple math and science there is, but there are rules that must be obeyed if one is to use it scientifically. There are others, but as I explained, next on the docket is the coming winter (official) olympics.

Yes, and again this is why your specific line of debate is pointless and pretty much at exactly the same level as the rest of the posters

"Pretty much" and "exactly"? You've been learning from Boomer how to be vague?

I can't help it that you don't believe that literalism with respect to his non-vague predictions is the only way they can be judged against history. But it is a fact there is no other way to "score" his predictions without resulting to conjecture.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Well, you've been arguing all along for wholesale dismissal, but I have not yet seen you agree with the first part of my statement. Rather than dismiss them wholly, I at least choose to examine the literal words for predictions that cannot be misconstrued as to what they (they words, not his intent) mean.

But we're talking about literal words. The Bible analogy is correct if we are as you stated taking someone at his literal word.

Show me somewhere in the Bible where a non-vague prediction was made and I might agree. We can't take writing as literal if there is an element of vagueness. Are there equivalents in the Bible that state precise year (i.e. civil war in 2004/5) or specific events (i.e. official olympics)? Not many that I know of. So again, your comparision is weak in my mind.

You're falling into the same trap here.

See immediately above.

Now, this may or may not be the case. But you have no evidence either way, so your argument is pretty much invalid as "proof" of anything.

Again, where have I ever said I am "proving" Titor wrong? History is handling that nicely. I am simply pointing out his literal words with respect to his (few) specific predictions and the specific times they relate to. I'd like to think I am doing something similar to what CigSmokingMan was doing, but without stretching Titor's literal words. No weekly Waco-like events (check). No collapse of western civilization after the 2004 prez elections (check). No civil war in 2004, and nothing yet in 2005 (check). No time-shattering news from Cern yet (check).

I am not, nor do I claim to be, the one "proving" Titor's words wrong. TIME is the ultimate arbitrator of any prediction.
RMT