JT is fake, period.

Making the video now. Why do I make more? I only get hundreds of requests to make more. Sure I have haters, but I'm immune to you haters, the more you hate the more you prove how legitimate something is. I do a show, it's part entertainment, with a focus on the factual, truth seeking. It's more than I can say for Coast to Coast AM, the current host has zero interest on truth seeking, zero interest on facts, 100% interest on agreeing with every guest and doing zero research. I would know, the host claimed to have called me, talked to me, got my side of the story, when the truth couldn't have been more the opposite. One of his producers emailed me his phone number, asked me to call him, I call him up, he claims he's on lunch, tells me he will call me back, never does. The next day on the show a caller calls up and asks about me, and the host claims he talked with me, got my side of the story, etc etc. Sometimes I'm not dead on, sometimes I break some eggs in the process of looking for the truth, but I never intend on misleading, I never put entertainment above the facts as I know them, I put the facts above anything, and if my facts aren't 100%, I will make a new video until they are 100% (especially if people ask for it), you don't have to watch my next video, but I assure you, you will hear about it, because there is some 'very interesting' new information that will be disclosed, and for the record, it will be my last JT vid, excepting JT responding.

Episode 004: Last JT Episode
Episode 005: Extraterrestrials on Earth?
Episode 006: The Montauk Project

So you see, I'm pretty much just making this video to make the fans happy & get the subject out of the way, but it coincides with a large sum of information that happened to materialize, I found it by accident, but it's 100x better than any of my previous evidence, in fact, it makes my previous evidence look weak, which is why I understand the skepticism.
 
Sure I have haters, but I'm immune to you haters, the more you hate the more you prove how legitimate something is. I
Click to expand...

Razimus,

That's simply not true. First "haters" is a self-defined term. You define it based upon the acceptance of your thesis. Those who agree are not haters. Those who disagree are haters. Second, no one cares enough or knows you well enough to hate you. They might not like your silly message but hate requires an intimate and personal relationship - to know you as a person. You're just another Internet poster who has a video camera. No one knows you, hates you or even cares. (Yes, that's a personal opinion. But I believe that follow posts by other members will bear out my thesis. It's an educated guess but I'm rather secure in the opinion.)

I disagree with you because you have shown yourself to be a sloppy "investigator". You know as well as I know that in the past you've made silly and wild accusations about who was involved in the "Titor Conspiracy" based on how many posts they made on the original threads. Several of those people, after years of not being involved in the Titor discussion, came forward and told you outright that you were wrong. You chose to ignore them. You come off as a ranting nutter, Raz. Take a long look at what you've posted over the years.

The bottom line is that you appear to be no more or less a "fifteen minutes of fame" bat shit nutter than the bat shit nutter pro-Titor crowd. And for the pro-Titor crowd that does not mean that you are all bat shit crazy. I'm talking about the outlayers - those on the Marz Barz fringe.

Anyway, make your posts as you decide. As has been the case in the past you will mostly be ignored if your approach does not change.

If, on the other hand, you actually desire to investigate rather than get hits on a You Tube video, then post something that makes sense, has some evidentiary validity and let the chips fall as they may.

And recall that after your "last and final" Titor video you promised the You Tube crowd that you would be coming forth with yet more important and stunning conspiracies that you would expose as fraud. Where are they?

The John Titor Saga was not fraud, not an Earth shaking conspiracy, The Red Menace or anything else detrimental to the health, safety and/or welfare of the World-at-Large. It was an Internet meme. An early attempt to recreate "The Blair Witch Project" om the Internet. It failed as a financial endeavor and only succeeded as an Internet meme because we (Pamela and I) kept it alive on Anomalies long enough for the JTF to do the Internet Spam Blitz in August 2003 to promote "The Book". And I have no problem with that. None at all.
 
gnostic said:
Those concentric circles I referred to were dark or black in color. They were not beams of light being bent into concentric circles.

Kindly,
Gnostic

Don’t forget to fill your gas can.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have a tale to tell. I see weird stuff all the time that sometimes defy rational explanations.
 
November 17, 2000
JT/TT0 posted:

“It is thought that being close to the gravitational field has a biological effect on all matter including cells. The effect is to slow the movement of electrons in the orbits of their nucleus, which slows the mechanical and biological functions of the observer close to gravity. Thus, the passing of time is a local phenomenon depending on how close you are to a gravitational source.

This is one example of a theory involving “time shells” progressing in size and intensity around a gravitational point from all matter. The more massive the object, the larger and more influential the time shells around it—like an onion. Another offshoot of this theory is that kinetic energy is actually the conversion of stored energy in the atom as it passes through time shells in a gravitational field.”

This theory of “time shells” best describes the concentric circles that were visible inside the distortion I had witnessed back in 2005. Can anyone describe what time shells should or would look like?

Kindly,

Gnostic

Don’t forget to fill your gas can.
 
gnostic

This theory of “time shells” best describes the concentric circles that were visible inside the distortion I had witnessed back in 2005. Can anyone describe what time shells should or would look like?
Click to expand...

If you actually seen something like this. It sounds like you were looking at the interference pattern of two converging wavefronts either emanating from the same point or converging on a central point or an inny and an outy wave convergence. The two waves not being of the same frequency would create concentric null zones and highly visible zones. The only thing is that if you seen this, then it would likely be someone with a holographic projector. Just an interesting trick one can duplicate using a projector.

But this does make me wonder why this phenomena isn't taught in schools to describe the orbital shells about an atom. Or even the possibility of using the phenomena to show why the orbits of the planets follow Bode's law.

This does give me an idea to try for a time machine though. I would need two time wave generators. One wave generator would be running at a fixed frequency. The other wave generator would have its frequency ramp either in the positive or negative direction. Visualizing this shows me that I would create the concentric interference patterns. But the patterns would either be expanding or contracting. The expansion or contraction would be either forward or backwards in time. Just a theoretical idea for now. But then I've been sitting on a functional time wave generator for over six years now. I guess the time has finally come for me to put a real time machine together.
 
“It is thought that being close to the gravitational field has a biological effect on all matter including cells. The effect is to slow the movement of electrons in the orbits of their nucleus
Click to expand...

Yes. Titor did post that. More than anything it served to show that his knowledge of physics, likely high school based and certainly not college based, was at least 75 years out of date. Electrons do not orbit nuclei like planets orbiting a star. Electron orbitals are quantum physical and represent probabilies of locating an electron somewhere within the volume of space defined by the orbital.

So, yes "it is thought that" [stuff about electrons] is true. The thoughts are mostly confined to pop-sci and incorrectly taught classical per-Einsteinian physics.

And at the sub-atomic particle level of individual particles gravity plays almost no part at all because of its incredibly weak force as compared to the other three forces at work in the nucleus.

If we give gravity a strength of "1" (unitless number) then here is the conparison of the releaive strength of the forces:

Gravity 1​
​
Weak Force 10^25​
​
EM 10^36​
​
Strong Force 10^38​

As you can see, for all intents and purposes at that level, gravity is zero and the other forces may just as well be infinite by comparison.

And just to be clear, the "surface" gravitational field of a proton or neutron is as strong as a gravitational field can be short of a black hole. Neutronium and protonium are as dense as matter can be without spacetime collapsing to a singularity. Yet gravity plays no part in nuclear physics.

Gravity only comes into play when you have a very ponderable mass because 1) it is an attractive force only and 2) Its field extends to infinity. EM also extends to infinity but is comes in two equally divided types - attractive and repulsive. Gravity overwhelms EM on the large scale because of this. The strong force is also only attractive but its field can only extend slightly more than the diameter of 1 or 2 nucleons because it is mediated by massive slow moving bosons rather than massless photons or gravitons that travel at the speed of light. The weak force is attractive or repulsive but it only extends within the nucleon itself.

Titor's statement was technically true. "It is thought" and this is "an example of a theory" are true statements if for no other reason than he made the statements. It would be an entirely different situation had he said, "Well known and respected physicist Dr. [Whomever] published the following paper [Title], found on ArXiv at [citation]." But that is not what he posted. What he posted was either a personal opinion or a simple statement made during the course of writing a sci-fi story online.
 
Back
Top