Re: John Titor Debate!
Pauli makes an excellent point about Titor acting as a sort of multi-faceted mirror in which anyone's viewpoint can be reflected back at them. I think this is very true. Why else would so many differing people find their agenda's served by his posts?
What bothers me is something that constantly seems to crop up. Like many here, I just can't buy into the 'it doesn't matter whether he's a time traveller or not' argument. Not when a Paranormal Discussion Board has to be turned into a political science forum. For those clearly politically-turned-on individuals who embrace Titor - time traveller or not - as merely a catalyst who reflects their own concerns about the future of the planet, why not legitimise those beliefs and concerns and go discuss them somewhere they might be of benefit? Somewhere that does not involve time-travelling soldiers from the future.
Mud Puppy:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"udpuppy\")</div>
Why ever not? What's not to compare?
One man appears with a story (right) out of a science-fiction novel.
He provides no evidence for this except some questionable photographs.
He maintains the consistancy of the story long enough that lots of people believe him and he gains a minor following world-wide.
Adamski spun his story out for years and it was only after Venus was shown to be inhospitable to life did his followers start to really doubt him.
Intrinsic to Titor's hoax is his anonymity. He's simply not around and in these less scientifically credulous days, that's an important move. It keeps him safe from tripping himself up or any meaningful investigation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
A good illustration. Those people were clearly suckered into their suicidal madness by the twisted agenda of one charismatic individual.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
No, but it is an excellent precedent for showing how vast amounts of apparently-intelligent people can be taken in by one individual's carefully prepared b/s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
Well, I can't comment on the holy books -though I suspect you're right - but as a science teacher I can, and will, comment on your contention that the Moonlanding has 'holes' in it. A better example of lazy, ill-informed, just-plain-wrong nonsense I've never come across. The notion that Apollo 11 was cooked up as a hoax is truly preposterous to anyone with an inkling of physics who looks at the supposed evidence of fakery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
Agreed. Absolutely. But for every Galileo there is a thousand Adamskis. For every Copernicus there are a thousand David Ickes (the guy now peddling books and videos on the net concerning his theory that the world is being run by a cabal of shape-shifting, twelve-foot-tall lizards who disguise themselves as the likes of the Clintons and the British royal family). And For every Neil Armstrong there are a thousand John Titors.
So if, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath water is to be avoided...must we continue to give credance to the likes of a George Adamski or a David Icke as well? Why favour Titor over either of these two gentlemen for example?
Pauli makes an excellent point about Titor acting as a sort of multi-faceted mirror in which anyone's viewpoint can be reflected back at them. I think this is very true. Why else would so many differing people find their agenda's served by his posts?
What bothers me is something that constantly seems to crop up. Like many here, I just can't buy into the 'it doesn't matter whether he's a time traveller or not' argument. Not when a Paranormal Discussion Board has to be turned into a political science forum. For those clearly politically-turned-on individuals who embrace Titor - time traveller or not - as merely a catalyst who reflects their own concerns about the future of the planet, why not legitimise those beliefs and concerns and go discuss them somewhere they might be of benefit? Somewhere that does not involve time-travelling soldiers from the future.
Mud Puppy:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"udpuppy\")</div>
Well, not being one to argue over the cookiness of Adamski, I don't think you can really compare him to Titor. [/b]
Why ever not? What's not to compare?
One man appears with a story (right) out of a science-fiction novel.
He provides no evidence for this except some questionable photographs.
He maintains the consistancy of the story long enough that lots of people believe him and he gains a minor following world-wide.
Adamski spun his story out for years and it was only after Venus was shown to be inhospitable to life did his followers start to really doubt him.
Intrinsic to Titor's hoax is his anonymity. He's simply not around and in these less scientifically credulous days, that's an important move. It keeps him safe from tripping himself up or any meaningful investigation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
Yes, there is a sucker born every minute....but does that mean that we compare Heaven's Gate to the yet to appear Second Coming of Christ as an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the Christian church for profit, power, etc...?[/b]
A good illustration. Those people were clearly suckered into their suicidal madness by the twisted agenda of one charismatic individual.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
\"Adamski being a crackpot doesn't necessarily imply that Titor is a crackpot.[/b]
No, but it is an excellent precedent for showing how vast amounts of apparently-intelligent people can be taken in by one individual's carefully prepared b/s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
Is it a story with some holes? Yep. But the bible (Old and New Testament) has holes. The Koran has holes. The first landing of man on the moon has holes.[/b]
Well, I can't comment on the holy books -though I suspect you're right - but as a science teacher I can, and will, comment on your contention that the Moonlanding has 'holes' in it. A better example of lazy, ill-informed, just-plain-wrong nonsense I've never come across. The notion that Apollo 11 was cooked up as a hoax is truly preposterous to anyone with an inkling of physics who looks at the supposed evidence of fakery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>
the history books are also full of so-called \"crackpots\" whose futuristic visions changed our world. Where would we be now without those \"crackpots?[/b]
Agreed. Absolutely. But for every Galileo there is a thousand Adamskis. For every Copernicus there are a thousand David Ickes (the guy now peddling books and videos on the net concerning his theory that the world is being run by a cabal of shape-shifting, twelve-foot-tall lizards who disguise themselves as the likes of the Clintons and the British royal family). And For every Neil Armstrong there are a thousand John Titors.
So if, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath water is to be avoided...must we continue to give credance to the likes of a George Adamski or a David Icke as well? Why favour Titor over either of these two gentlemen for example?