My apologies for the late reply. I cannot always take time for composing my thoughts and an expression.
Vodkafan, I can assure you I am 'not' claiming to be anyone but myself. The website owner must have logs of my email address to signup and I'm sure the ability to back-trace these things would be available to them. TT_OO I believe might be the man you're looking for. Call it instinct, gut, intuition, I don't know. Its just what I believe. Look at 'their' age...
RMT, after careful thought, and curious pondering, I think that If I were to have something valuable that otherwise might be corrupted, might be attacked, or even lost, I would suspect that a select few 'guards' of information would have the honed ability of experience to 'keep the wolves' at bay. I can appreciate and understand that its been a very long time and a very long road for some.
There is some confusion though, as I am unsure of who believes the Titor story, who doesnt believe, what each person hopes to gain, what knowledge they are seeking. This makes communication difficult.
My personal belief is that once you look at MWI, it becomes clear as day that the 'theory' seems to be 'for all practical purposes', an umberella or maybe a glove of idea that fits snugly over the existing, seemingly 'unconnected' realms in not only science, but paranormal, personal and other areas that are 'mysterious'. To digest or understand the Titor tale, the only way any of it makes any internally-consistent sense is by using the backdrop of MWI as, at least, a working hypothesis and thus factor into ones thinking. (Or, more accurately, replace our awareness. Much like a 3d understanding of our surroundings and nonlocal surroundings being replaced with a consistent 4d awareness.)
Otherwise, then the story doesnt make any sense. I think this is where people have big trouble in digesting the 'predictions.
An example is with the seemingly failed 08 Olympics prediction. On the surface, the prediction never happened. To most of us, this is a clear example of why John 'must' be a fake. The Original John was from an approx 2 percent divergence worldline to our own, or his being equal distance relative. Now, I dont know much about the why's, and answers, but someone mentioned somewhere that the 08 Olympics were marred by controversy at the time and they mentioned an approx amount of protesters. For this, we will say, hypothetically there were 100 individual protestors. Now, If I am to 'consider a 'resolvable conclusion' that somehow is a working explanation on John's validity, and MWI's, then the only explanation that I can come up with is that approx 2 percent (divergence) of Protesters, who would have otherwise possibly been the 'needle that broke the camels back', for whatever reasons (divergence) never showed up.
Sounds silly on the outset, how could approx 2 protesters be of any difference right?
Heres the intresting part.
it is very possible that the percentage of protesters 'missing' could well have been the most vocal and If they did happen to attend, they might have inspired the other protesters to be more adamant and vocal about the issue. The way I see it, the only way to take John's predictions seriously is to account for the MWI. Without it,the Titor story is full of seemingly 'failed' predictions and inconsistencies.
Now, as debate is often marred with bringing triviality, ego and personal attacks, I can only illustrate this with a very real example of divergence.
I have a favourite band, as we all do. Now, I know my favourite musical group consisted of 4 members. 2 were highly creative and innovative, but for the most part, the other 2 were accomplished, just not as creative.
Ok, so Band X, before they become popular, decide to enter a battle of the bands with 24 other musical groups of 4 members each. Again, this is just an example, so stay with me.
Band X is 4 members. 25 groups of 4 is 100 bandmembers.
What if there were an approx 2 percent divergence? Is it possible that my 2 percent, my 2 favourite band members did not attend the battle of the bands. a 2 percent divergence.
My favourite band never go on to fame, and I never hear amazing songs from them.
Instead of the 2 percent, the 2 creative people going on to being a very visible and major part of musical history, they were not.
In my eyes, this explanation works 'only' if we consider MWI.
Trying to understand most of what Titor said 'without' the MWI is flawed and really is damn confusing.
I think any of John's claims can be explained. You just need to accept the MWI, and it all makes a helluva lot more sense.
Im fairly confident any 'confusion' in the John story can be found to be 'internally consistent' in the MWI framework/mindset.
Cheers Gentlemen.