Another Way to Look at Titor's Predictions
I was pondering this whole "John Titor" mystery last night, trying to figure out if any of his predictions make sense, since I am, like the other folks here, fascinated by this story. Then a thought occurred to me that was both thrilling and disturbing, the way that a really good horror movie is thrilling and disturbing. So I thought I would share it on the forum.
The thought that I was pondering last night had nothing to do with the "technical" aspect of John Titor's time travel or any particular message that he posted or on the philosophical question of whether time travel is possible. What I asked myself was "How could a Civil War actually start in the U.S. A., if we assume that one is being waged by 2012 and it actually begins next year? I kept wracking my brain and I could not come up with ANY reasonable way that this particular thing could occur. I know a lot about history, and civil wars just don't "erupt" over legal issues. At least, they don't unless there are large, well equipped "militia" armies or "warlord" mercenary armies that are just sitting around, looking for trouble.
So is the Civil War portion of Titor's story just too far-fetched? Well, I think I can explain (drum roll please) how Titor could be "telling the truth" even if nothing that we would call a "civil war" actually takes place.
You see, I have read a bunch of Titor's posts (but I'm no expert, just an interested observer) and I have reached the conclusion that we are making some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about John Titor. To begin with, we are over-estimating his education and his familiarity with the "facts" of history. This mistake on our part is quite understandable. We tend to think that "people from the future " will know more than we do. It does not occur to us that they may know LESS than we do. But, after giving it some thought, I believe that this would be that case.
We are the most well educated and well informed people in history. The folks who contribute to this forum are among the elite, in all of human history, in the amount of information available to us and in the way that we use that information. But, we make a mistake when we assume that John Titor is "like us" because he posted messages on a forum or chat.
I would say that Titor has a limited education. We "goes to war" at an early age. He probably is an average student when he is in school, which means that he is pretty ignorant (this is a statistical fact) compared to the folks who post on internet forums. After the nuclear war, Titor does not have access to more information, he has less access. So, the conclusion that I'm forced to draw is that Titor has no access to news or information except for what his government tells him-- and that government is telling him their official "propaganda" version of what happened, not what "really" happened. And THAT is the version that Titor gave us in his messages.
I like to use examples to illustrate points. As an example, let's say that you ask a veteran of the (North) Vietnamese Army to describe the Vietnam War. He'll say that the U.S. invaded Vietnam and, after a terrible war, the people of Vietnam threw out the invaders. Period. That is "the truth" as far as he sees it. Now, if you ask an American veteran the same thing, he'll give you a very different version of events.
So, what is the likely "truth" behind the Titor story? Well, it is possible that a very, very low intensity conflict begins in the U.S.A., with rural militia groups having occasional confrontations with federal forces. Titor probably joined one of these groups an a very early age and was "indoctrinated" as an anti-government militia member. From his (limited) point of view, he is in a war. But from the point of view of most U.S. citizens, there is NO CIVIL WAR. But, there are many militia groups who are becoming angrier and angrier.
Then comes the nuclear war. The major cities are destroyed. Now, all those militia groups are suddenly the only organized military force in most of the country. So they fill the power vacuum. A few years pass, and the official story is created and taught to soldiers like Titor. "No, we did not lose a nuclear war, we WON A CIVIL WAR! YAY!!" It's pure (and brilliant) propaganda. Now, the events which caused the militia groups to gain power (the nuclear war) are not a "disaster" but actually a GOOD thing. After all, why put a negative spin on these events, particularly when the final outcome was a "win" (sort of) for the rural militias?
All of this does not mean that Titor is a moron. He's very intelligent and probably a "war hero" and certainly able to learn fast. This does not mean that Titor could not have used highly sophisticated equipment. Intelligence and training have nothing to do with the "Jeopardy Level Knowledge of Facts" that most of us (on this forum) possess. Titor is a very smart, very capable soldier. He just lacks information, except for what his government wants him to believe.
So, there's my theory. I hope I'm wrong.
I was pondering this whole "John Titor" mystery last night, trying to figure out if any of his predictions make sense, since I am, like the other folks here, fascinated by this story. Then a thought occurred to me that was both thrilling and disturbing, the way that a really good horror movie is thrilling and disturbing. So I thought I would share it on the forum.
The thought that I was pondering last night had nothing to do with the "technical" aspect of John Titor's time travel or any particular message that he posted or on the philosophical question of whether time travel is possible. What I asked myself was "How could a Civil War actually start in the U.S. A., if we assume that one is being waged by 2012 and it actually begins next year? I kept wracking my brain and I could not come up with ANY reasonable way that this particular thing could occur. I know a lot about history, and civil wars just don't "erupt" over legal issues. At least, they don't unless there are large, well equipped "militia" armies or "warlord" mercenary armies that are just sitting around, looking for trouble.
So is the Civil War portion of Titor's story just too far-fetched? Well, I think I can explain (drum roll please) how Titor could be "telling the truth" even if nothing that we would call a "civil war" actually takes place.
You see, I have read a bunch of Titor's posts (but I'm no expert, just an interested observer) and I have reached the conclusion that we are making some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about John Titor. To begin with, we are over-estimating his education and his familiarity with the "facts" of history. This mistake on our part is quite understandable. We tend to think that "people from the future " will know more than we do. It does not occur to us that they may know LESS than we do. But, after giving it some thought, I believe that this would be that case.
We are the most well educated and well informed people in history. The folks who contribute to this forum are among the elite, in all of human history, in the amount of information available to us and in the way that we use that information. But, we make a mistake when we assume that John Titor is "like us" because he posted messages on a forum or chat.
I would say that Titor has a limited education. We "goes to war" at an early age. He probably is an average student when he is in school, which means that he is pretty ignorant (this is a statistical fact) compared to the folks who post on internet forums. After the nuclear war, Titor does not have access to more information, he has less access. So, the conclusion that I'm forced to draw is that Titor has no access to news or information except for what his government tells him-- and that government is telling him their official "propaganda" version of what happened, not what "really" happened. And THAT is the version that Titor gave us in his messages.
I like to use examples to illustrate points. As an example, let's say that you ask a veteran of the (North) Vietnamese Army to describe the Vietnam War. He'll say that the U.S. invaded Vietnam and, after a terrible war, the people of Vietnam threw out the invaders. Period. That is "the truth" as far as he sees it. Now, if you ask an American veteran the same thing, he'll give you a very different version of events.
So, what is the likely "truth" behind the Titor story? Well, it is possible that a very, very low intensity conflict begins in the U.S.A., with rural militia groups having occasional confrontations with federal forces. Titor probably joined one of these groups an a very early age and was "indoctrinated" as an anti-government militia member. From his (limited) point of view, he is in a war. But from the point of view of most U.S. citizens, there is NO CIVIL WAR. But, there are many militia groups who are becoming angrier and angrier.
Then comes the nuclear war. The major cities are destroyed. Now, all those militia groups are suddenly the only organized military force in most of the country. So they fill the power vacuum. A few years pass, and the official story is created and taught to soldiers like Titor. "No, we did not lose a nuclear war, we WON A CIVIL WAR! YAY!!" It's pure (and brilliant) propaganda. Now, the events which caused the militia groups to gain power (the nuclear war) are not a "disaster" but actually a GOOD thing. After all, why put a negative spin on these events, particularly when the final outcome was a "win" (sort of) for the rural militias?
All of this does not mean that Titor is a moron. He's very intelligent and probably a "war hero" and certainly able to learn fast. This does not mean that Titor could not have used highly sophisticated equipment. Intelligence and training have nothing to do with the "Jeopardy Level Knowledge of Facts" that most of us (on this forum) possess. Titor is a very smart, very capable soldier. He just lacks information, except for what his government wants him to believe.
So, there's my theory. I hope I'm wrong.