John Titor is a fraud - here's a brief reason why

[Peter_Novak]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

It's not a matter of the definition of "speculation" that has us at odds, but the definition of "signs". We got here by arguing whether or not there currently existed any "signs" of a coming second American Civil War.

You are speculating about a civil war that...shows absolutely no signs of coming to pass

You said there weren't any such signs, and I said there were. You seem to be operating under the assumption that "signs" are solid proof, while I was viewing "signs" more as evidence rather than conclusive proof.

The point is, the internet rumors are clearly speculation, just as is your ASSUMED use for these detention facilities.

While I may be making an assumption about the intended use of these facilities, it is not just MY assumption alone, but is an assumption shared by a great many in America. And while it may be an incorrect assumption, it is nonetheless certain that the unknown purpose of these facilities seems worrisome and threatening to a segment of the American populace, and that fear and distrust can only work to expand the rifts in our society rather than heal them. Thus, the detention centers themselves are not just a sign of possible Civil War, but the widespread assumptions about them are themselves also signs, in that those assumptions could themselves work to bring that Civil War about, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.


- Peter

 

[creedo299]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

I found this one point interesting, as Pamela Moore in her tellings, somehow left this out.

In the discussion of cannibalism, as aired on Cannibalism, on the History Channel, it was found that a certain refractive protein, was produced within familes, that has contracted the Croist-feld, Yack-ove, or Croistfeld Jacob, (phonetic) prionic disease.

It seems that in the genetics passed down, in family lines, where the gene is accounted for in the womb, as a fetus marker trait, that in a Mendialian style of way, the adaptability of the DNA helix, itself, changes so that in some instances, members of that family line carrying susceptibility to the trait, are protected by a protein within their system.

How P. Moore, transferred her thought on this line of logic, is that Croistfeld Jacob, would be an all pervasive wave, enveloping everyone.

 

[RainmanTime]

Does Peter Novak wish to live in Titor\'s world?

I didn't forget or abandon you, Peter.

I guess the olive branch I offered to "agree to disagree" here and explore areas where we might agree was something you chose to ignore. At least that is the way it seems. But I don't mind continuing this thread...

It's not a matter of the definition of "speculation" that has us at odds, but the definition of "signs". We got here by arguing whether or not there currently existed any "signs" of a coming second American Civil War.

I disagree simply because the ideas of both "speculation" and what may constitute "signs of the future" are indeed closely related (consider the idea of playing the stock market, and that is enough evidence to show what I mean). IOW, since we are not currently engaged in a US Civil War (as Titor predicted) then it can be nothing more than speculative for you to claim that there are "signs around us" that suggest Civil War is at hand. In fact, I again point out that because we would agree that we are NOT, CURRENTLY (as of 4 April 2006) engaged in a US Civil War, then any discussion of whether there are "signs" that suggest we will erupt in one is totally, and completely speculative. Until we actually erupt in civil war, your belief in such "signs" is, by definition, speculative.

You said there weren't any such signs, and I said there were. You seem to be operating under the assumption that "signs" are solid proof, while I was viewing "signs" more as evidence rather than conclusive proof.

Yes, I did say there were no such signs. And since I said that I have gone on to explain and clarify that it would be speculation to claim there are "signs" when in point of fact there is currently no civil war. I would concede this to you: If we erupt in a civil war in the US tomorrow (5 April), THEN I would agree that the things you sight could have been signs, and be devoid of speculation....for the eruption of the civil war would be defacto EVIDENCE and PROOF at the same time. But I think you must agree with me that until we actually ARE in a civil war, your "signs" are nothing more than speculation, without sufficient evidence to prove their validity.

While I may be making an assumption about the intended use of these facilities, it is not just MY assumption alone, but is an assumption shared by a great many in America. And while it may be an incorrect assumption, it is nonetheless certain that the unknown purpose of these facilities seems worrisome and threatening to a segment of the American populace, and that fear and distrust can only work to expand the rifts in our society rather than heal them. Thus, the detention centers themselves are not just a sign of possible Civil War, but the widespread assumptions about them are themselves also signs, in that those assumptions could themselves work to bring that Civil War about, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So a question I hope you might be willing to answer: Do you think you can reliably estimate the percentage of the American population that:

a) Knows about the intention to build these "camps".
b) Agrees with your assessement that since they don't know what they are for, they are concerned about their actual use.

Do you have any verifiable statistical numbers from polls or anything of the sort that would support what you have stated? Certainly if you can show that greater than 50% of our populace are seriously concerned about this news, or these camps, I might be willing to concede some points to you. But so far, all I read are your interpretations.... and yes, they are formed as speculations.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

RainmanTime\'s Prediction! WOW, I got pretty close!

I felt I had to resurrect this thread based on President Bush's speech tonight and the "speculation" I shared with Peter Novak about "concentration camps". The quote I refer to in my post is as follows:

First of all, I hope you can clearly see in your own words how you set-up speculation ("if we never heard any talk about detention..."). Now let me show you my own speculation that works to counter yours for this issue: Since our government is clearly beginning to engage the illegal alien issue, most of us who are staying apprised of all the issues surrouning the main issue are aware of something being talked about called AMNESTY for current illegal aliens who are living and working here. Since our governmental legislative affairs are debated in the open, such that the public has a record of what is going on and what laws are passed and when they may become effective, it is reasonable and prudent to SPECULATE that if amnesty were agreed to be part of a bill that became law, that there would be a date after which amnesty would not be applicable to illegal residents who are already here. Such a date would be part of the public record of the subject legislation WELL before the law went into effect. It is easy to see (and speculate) that this could easily lead non-residents who are poised at or near the border, who have been considering crossing illegally, to suddenly FLOOD THE BORDER and overwhelm any attempt to capture them and turn them back. Now I would simply call it prudent planning that if something like this does come to pass, that we should be prepared for such a flood, and part of that preparation would be to have a place to temporarily hold illegal immigrants before they could be re-naturalized back to Mexico.

And now let's review a couple of the facts being reported on CNN with regard to Bush's recent speech on the immigration issue. From: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration/index.html

In his speech, Bush said his administration would end the "catch and release" policy, under which illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico are released and allowed to live in the United States while awaiting a deportation hearing.

To end "catch and release," Bush said more facilities would be build to detain illegal immigrants, and he said steps were being taken to expedite the hearing process.

WOW! RainmanTime's pretty damn good, huh? Maybe even better at predicting the future than Titor was!

Now, I could also share some other quotes from this story which will contradict what many "Bush bashers" think about how he views the immigrant protests. But I will let you read the article for yourself. It is not likely that even the reporting of CNN would convince you that Bush is going against what many in his party want... because Bush KNOWS the significance of "guest laborers" to our economy. Such people who hate Bush are more interested in just hating Bush, rather than understanding what his real stance is (which may often coincide with their own!).

RMT

 

[Goro_Lives]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

So it seems today there is quite a bit of "infrastructure" software written for the s/360 instruction set that has yet to be converted.

I'm curious what you think of this person's response.

I don't accept his response, although I admit I'm not the best person to ask about the air traffic industry. Those old machines are ridicously underpowered by today's standards. A $20 calculator has more memory and more processing power than those machines. It is far easier and cheaper to replace those machines than it is to continue supporting them. When it comes to hardware and software, the IT industry favors the purchase, consume, and dispose cycle.

 

[MEM]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

So it seems today there is quite a bit of "infrastructure" software written for the s/360 instruction set that has yet to be converted.

Ask some older IT guys in "infrastructure" industries if you want to know if it is true or not.

 

[Hercules]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

We've had the same problem with Y2K and there were no issues because upgrades are common and eventual. It's ALWAYS cheaper and easier to replace legacy hardware and software than it is to repair them. This is mainly due to decreased hardware costs, added feature sets, and increased productivity from new tools.

Sure but he talked about Y2K also.

Read this carefully:

When I arrive in the “new” 1998 worldline on my way home I could easily start all of this again and continue to go through the same conversations with all of the same people. However, I already know you won’t pay any attention or believe me because we’ve already been through it on this worldline. Besides, I think the walk to the gas station will do you some good.

Here he makes reference to the gas station and implies that he filled the “gas” for us in the current worldline and on his way back he can do it again. He makes reference to the gas can quite a few times.

The “running out of gas” means “running out of bits” or dates or whatever it was that caused Y2K.

Sure Y2K and Y2K38 are two different scenarios. But I understand both has something to do with the Mainframe architecture. System 360, 370, 390 and the latest z series. Since IBM maintained backward compatibility at application level, accessing the raw “software” might make the job much easier.

What I understood was he implies that got the IBM 5100 and tweaked it to remove the ROM from the machine and extracted the whole “software” written in the ROM in 1998.

The 5100 was a portable machine. This was made possible by complex programming and emulation so that most of the s/360 hardware features were completely emulated by software and all the old COBOL and other compilers and interpreters were loaded on to the ROM of the IBM 5100. So if someone needs to access the “old” software, the 5100’s ROM images would be a good alternative as it contained everything.

By releasing it in 1998 he claims that he fixed Y2K by releasing the data in the 5100 in our worldline. So we would not have 2038 bug either.

I don’t care the story is real or hoax anymore, but as a work of fiction, the story is very interesting.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

Hercules,

Here he makes reference to the gas station and implies that he filled the “gas” for us in the current worldline and on his way back he can do it again. He makes reference to the gas can quite a few times.

The “running out of gas” means “running out of bits” or dates or whatever it was that caused Y2K.

That is just about the biggest interpretive "stretch" I have seen you offer so far. You have absolutely no way of validating that this was what he meant. For all you know he could have meant nothing more than gas (i.e. his actual words).

Sure Y2K and Y2K38 are two different scenarios. But I understand both has something to do with the Mainframe architecture.

No. One (the 2038 UNIX) problem is an architecture problem (and not "mainframe", as in hardware, but UNIX as in OS problem). Y2K was not about "architecture" at all. It was merely about the choice to reflect the year in a date representation as 2 digits instead of the full 4. "Architecture" implies there is a design standard, which there was not. Y2K was due to a lack of forward-thinking design standard which lead to individual design choices to use 2 digits to "save memory".

The part about "saving memory" back in those days is a HUGE Key to what you say that follows and my rebuttal. People did anything and everything back then to "save memory", which is why your comment here makes no sense:

The 5100 was a portable machine. This was made possible by complex programming and emulation so that most of the s/360 hardware features were completely emulated by software and all the old COBOL and other compilers and interpreters were loaded on to the ROM of the IBM 5100. So if someone needs to access the “old” software, the 5100’s ROM images would be a good alternative as it contained everything.

(BIG SIGH). You just never give up on this do you? And you have also never addressed my point about this, namely, that you could not POSSIBLY fit "all the old COBOL and other compilers and interpreters" into the ROM of that era! If you tried to (forget the fact that 8 bit addressing wouldn't allow you to reach that much code) you would end up with a machine MUCH larger than the 5100. Have you even bothered to go back and look at the "state of the art" memory size of ROM chips were in those days?

By releasing it in 1998 he claims that he fixed Y2K by releasing the data in the 5100 in our worldline.

Please show me where he (Titor) makes that claim. This is YOUR claim, based on some pretty poor speculation, if you ask me.

So we would not have 2038 bug either.

And how do you figure that is true? The 2038 bug is still "out there", known, and being considered in both new and upgrade applications. In fact, if memory serves me right, current evolutions of Linux (derived from UNIX) fixed this problem. (Now I am sure you will say "Yes, thanks to John Titor").

I don’t care the story is real or hoax anymore

You say this, but at the same time you continue to stretch his words to try and make it sound plausible and/or real. And might I add that the "stretches" to interpretation that you make are much, much MUCH larger than something so innocuous as stretching "last official Olympics" to "last official SUMMER Olympics" (which Titor did NOT say).

N/I RMT

 

[Darby]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

Rainman,

Of course the Titor/TTO who visited "our" 1998 after visiting "our" 2000-2001 said that Y2K was going to be a total and deadly distster.

Maybe Group Titor was paying a bit too much attention to Gary North in 1998.

 

[exdeath]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

Maybe those things will doenst happen bacause of the changes, that he did going to the past.

I don't believe in titor, but this is a "explanion" why this will not happen. If he really existed this would be one explanation.

 

[Robert_M_Blevins]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason

Of course John Titor is a fraud...

Was there any doubt? Besides, the government would have grabbed him long ago and made an Area 51 prisoner out of him...(lol) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Darby]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

exdeath,

Maybe those things will doenst happen bacause of the changes, that he did going to the past.

We have to take this within the totality of the context of his story.

He didn't come here to stop anything. He was in enemy territory. According to his story we are hated in his time and we are the enemy. He wouldn't have been here to stop Y2K, the civil war or anything else. For his version of the Brave New World to come about the story would have to unfold as he told it. Otherwise his new US government doesn't come to power, there is no world war and there is no motivation to invent time travel to go to 1975 and obtain a POS IMB 5100/5110 computer to save his world.

 

[exdeath]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

I was not talking that he come here to save us, i was talkking about the butterfly effect theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect ), that says that "even a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear."

So the changes that he did coming to the past, talking with her parents and with us, maybe changed the future, and in this future (now) the scientists know how to fix the unix problem.

 

[Time_Traveller]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

I was not talking that he come here to save us, i was talkking about the butterfly effect theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect ), that says that "even a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear."

So the changes that he did coming to the past, talking with her parents and with us, maybe changed the future, and in this future (now) the scientists know how to fix the unix problem.

but then he would know this, wouldn't he? he didn't mention whether his timeline was visited by time travellers prior to the invention of the time travel machine as far as I know.

one question: if everything began with the Big Bag, why do you think JT lives in 2036 while we live in 2006? wouldn't time be the same in all worldlines? why would they differ?

 

[exdeath]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

because he is from the future (if he was true).


A example: hittle lives in 1943, and 1942, and 1941 and .........

I live in 2005, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, .... 1997...

 

[Time_Traveller]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

because he is from the future (if he was true).


A example: hittle lives in 1943, and 1942, and 1941 and .........

I live in 2005, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, .... 1997...

you haven't answered my question.

scenario 1:

There may be different timelines, in each of which you make a different decision. That's why they differ from one another, but they all have the same time. For example, in timeline A you are 20 years old. In time line B you are 20 too, but while in time A, you choose to stay home all day watching TV, in timeline B you go out with friends.

Then when you travel in time, you actually won't be travelling in time, but in timelines.

scenario 2:

You can travel to every instance of the past. For example, you are 40 now. jumping in a time machine, you can go back in time when you were 20. or you can go back in time when Hittites lived. You can witness the history at first hand.

scenario 2, even 1, does not make sense. what evidence do we have, or what makes us think that, say Hittites, would be there, live and kicking. time travel is something like reviving the dead. can you revive the dead? (God forbid!)

 

[Darby]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

Time Traveller,

one question: if everything began with the Big Bag, why do you think JT lives in 2036 while we live in 2006? wouldn't time be the same in all worldlines? why would they differ?

Because the other universe is unobservable there is no way to conclude that time on "Earth" there has any synchronization with time on Earth here. The greater the spacetime seperation between events (or "things") the greater the change in time synchronization between them. Its possible to think of the seperation between universes as infinite. So your guess is as good as mine about how "far" away another universe is from us.

But that's not a problem any more than it being a problem that Asia is not here in North America. Its a spacetime seperation between the two continents that you overcome by using a proper map if you want to journey from one to the other.

Obviously, a trip from one universe to another is a bit more daunting because the other universe is absolutely unobservable. At least when you travel across the Pacific Ocean you can look back and see where you've come from (even if "looking back" means looking up at the stars). There are no "aids to navigation" between universes.

But even within our own universe time unfolds at different rates depending on where you look. Time here on Earth unfolds at one rate, near a massive star it unfolds at another rate, near a black hole at yet another rate and near the singularity within a black hole it unfolds at a very different rate.

The point here is that the theories of special and general relativity very clearly tell us that time is relative, not absolute. There is no such animal as "our" timeline. Another point that these two physical theories tell us is that we can no longer think of time and space independently of each other. They are different dimensions of a 4-D spacetime continuum.

Bottom line: It doesn't make any physical sense to think of John Titor's 2006 as being synchronized or desynchronized with our 2006. And its not a particular problem in either case even if the concept had any logical merit...all one needs is a good Time Travel Triple-A road map. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Note: Yeah, yeah - I know...John Titor said that his Wiggle VGL took a gravity snapshot and locked up on it as he traversed the wormhole...thus he had a gravity roadmap. To put it mildly, that's a load of Internet BS. The gravitational field of his two black holes locally dwarfed the strength of the gravitational field of the Earth as measured inside his Chevrolet. And the farther away that he got from his Earth the weaker the gravitational field...it decreased as the inverse square of the change in seperation. It sounded good to people who wanted to believe but it was pretty silly. No roadmap there.

To put the Earth's extremely weak gravitational field into perspective relative to two black holes sitting next to each other that have the ability to open a hole into time think of it like this:

Stretch a thin sheet of latex over a 1' x 1' wooden frame. Gently sit an 8 lb shotput on it. It doesn't fall through the bladder. The entire entire mass of our planet is not sufficient to generate a gravitational field strong enough to get the ball to break the electronic bonds of a few thousand molecule thick sheet of latex. Relative to the black holes there is no Earth gravitational field - it is swollowed up as undetectable background "noise".

 

[Time_Traveller]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

Because the other universe is unobservable

Obviously, a trip from one universe to another is a bit more daunting because the other universe is absolutely unobservable.

what do you mean by "unobservable"? why is it unobservable? is the passage between universes, according to the theory, through a blackhole? do our universe abound with blackholes? do blackholes swallow nearby stars or astral objects? if yes, what happens to them? what is the risk of Planet Earth being swallowed by a black hole? a rough estimate of time? are the blackholes the remnants of the dead stars? do all the blackholes function as passages to other universes?

Because the other universe is unobservable there is no way to conclude that time on "Earth" there has any synchronization with time on Earth here. The greater the spacetime seperation between events (or "things") the greater the change in time synchronization between them. Its possible to think of the seperation between universes as infinite. So your guess is as good as mine about how "far" away another universe is from us.

well, what evidence do we have the other universe is the same as our own? It can be way different. different earths, different people or beings, life forms, different histories. what makes one think that in other universes we live and we live other lives?

can ufos, if they are real, be beings coming from other universes?

 

[Darby]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

Time_Traveller,

1. what do you mean by "unobservable"?

2 . why is it unobservable?

3. is the passage between universes, according to the theory, through a blackhole?

4. do our universe abound with blackholes?

5. do blackholes swallow nearby stars or astral objects?

6. if yes, what happens to them?

7. what is the risk of Planet Earth being swallowed by a black hole?


8. are the blackholes the remnants of the dead stars?

9. do all the blackholes function as passages to other universes?

1. By unobservable I mean that we can neither directly detect nor interact with another universe.

2. They are located "elsewhere" outside the lightcone of this universe. Therefore if you could somehow get there from here you would have no way to know what you were gettting into until you arrived there. You wouldn't even know where you were going until you arrived...and there would be an infinite number of roads leading out. You wouldn't know how to get home. (Although some distant future super advanced society might be able to figure out the roadmap).

3. The theoretical passage between universes is through a wormhole - indirectly via a blackhole. In theory Kerr-Newman class blackholes (mass, angular momentum and electric charge) can have a wormhole associated with them.

4. Yes - it appears that our universe abounds with black holes. Stars with masses much above 3 solar masses after they nova form black holes. It appears that at the center of every galaxy there is a super massive black hole.

5. Yes. Once any object crosses the event horizon of a black hole it is swollowed. At the limb of the event horizon the escape velocity is precisely the speed of light. Inside the event horizon the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. The situation is slightly different for Kerr solutions. Adding angular momentum (which is what we expect most black holes to have) seems to create two event horizons. It is theoretically possible to escape the outer event horizon but not the inner horizon.

6. The only observable (from outside the BH) information that remains is the object's mass, electric charge and angular momentum. Where is the object? "Elsewhere" is all that can be said. The singularity at the "center" of the black hole is not a place (it has zero dimension).

7. There is no real risk of the Earth being swollowed by a black hole. It would take a very large BH and we would be able to detect it if there was one nearby. If we created a small BH on Earth and it "escaped" it would burrow to the center of the Earth, consume a large amount of mass but it would eventually create a vacuum around it well outside the event horizon. Matter would thereafter trickle into the BH. Warning: Do not be anywhere in the vicinity of an escaped black hole. They are sloppy eaters. They consume matter and fart hard gamma radiation. It would be akin to a thermo-nuclear device detonation but it wouldn't stop "detonating" for quite some time. If it was small enough, maybe only a few tons, then we would be in trouble. Hawking Radiation evaporation would quickly convert large amount of mass to pure energy. Remember E=mc^2. Its about 20kt TNT/gram of mass.

8. Some black holes would be the remenants of +3 solar mass stars that had left the Main Sequence and undergone gravitational collapse. Not all 3-4 solar mass stars would become black holes. If they super-nova and blow off enough mass to fall below the 3 solar mass limit they would become neutron stars (unless, of course, they blew off so much mass that even a neutron star could not form).

9. Maybe. Not all black holes, in theory, create wormhole gateways to other universes (if they even exist). But, on the other hand, we really don't know what goes on at the singularity because the laws of general relativity break down there. I have to add that every spacetime diagram that I've seen assocaited with the various classes of black holes indicates areas with pathways to "elsewhere" - ostensibly another universe. So - maybe they do and maybe they don't. ???

The real problem with trying to figure out what happens inside a black hole experimentally rather than theoretically is that it is a one-way trip. Much like urinating in your wetsuit, which feels wonderful in cold water - but we don't usually tell people that we did it, our black hole traveler won't be answering the question, "So, how's the black hole trip working for you?"

.

 

[Time_Traveller]

Re: John Titor is a fraud - here\'s a brief reason why

Hi, Darby. Thank you for information. so I undestand there is a distinction between a black hole and a wormhole. Black holes do not provide passages to other universes but wormholes associated with BHs do. ok.

Once any object crosses the event horizon of a black hole it is swollowed.

what do you mean by "event horizon"?

The singularity at the "center" of the black hole is not a place (it has zero dimension).

what do you mean by "the singularity"?

If we created a small BH on Earth and it "escaped" it would burrow to the center of the Earth, consume a large amount of mass but it would eventually create a vacuum around it well outside the event horizon.

Is it possible to make a (small) black hole? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Do not be anywhere in the vicinity of an escaped black hole.

What is "an escaped black hole"?

The real problem with trying to figure out what happens inside a black hole experimentally rather than theoretically is that it is a one-way trip.

Why is it one way? Isn't it possible for beings from other universes to come to our universe using that wormhole? Can the different gateways be leading to different universes rather than just one?

our black hole traveler won't be answering the question, "So, how's the black hole trip working for you?"

well, I believe there are a lot of people who would be willing to go even without looking behind if such a travel were possible?