Debate John Titor: Real Time Traveler or a Hoaxer?

[Lagnar]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

Originally Posted by Goodwin
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You're entire argument is based on a value judgement Lagnar. You think that your truth is different to mine? - Its not really you know. Your arguing for your particular truth. And right now that's as subjective as anyone else's in here.

You are absolutely correct, Goodwin, in the thought that my truth isn't 'really' different to yours. It is without question, exactly the same as yours, yet possesion of the truth can not simply be claimed by anyone unless they are unsure of it and trying to convince others. It is not my truth or your truth or anyone else's truth; it is simply "THEE" truth. There is only one "kind", and it can never be thought of as subjective. The truth consists of only objective fact, there is only ONE [singular] truth, and it has not been found yet. How can ANYONE argue for truth that isn't known? One can only argue for the essense of truth (that it is singular and objective), and it matters not who professes to know it. You called me a fence-sitter, yet there is, and has always been, an arguement that I am always eager to get into, and that is that truth is ONLY objective, and it can never be claimed by anyone because it belongs to everyone.

When a subject so heart-felt as our own existance as a race of human beings is being talked about and argued over, I am simply unable to take a stance either way until more evidence is laid out in front of me that will unequivacally convince me of thee truth. If it be good, then I can exhale and relax, if it be bad then I can take steps to ensure my survival and then exhale and relax, but for now (even as admittedly I take steps anyway, shouldn't every parent?) I remain in a kind of numb limbo, eager for more evidence steering me in either direction. I don't think anyone on the Paranormal Network believes deep down that they "KNOW" the truth either way, except maybe for you (because you seem to fight so furvently against any bad future being presented in which you must hold some kind of belief or else where would the drive you seem to have come from). And whether you believe one way or the other, the only way to make another person aware of thee truth is to present as much evidence as you see fit, and keep presenting evidence until you have the viable power to shift everyone's belief in your direction. However, this can not be done effectively through anger, ire or hostility, because (apart from pissing people off and putting them on the defensive, producing absolutely no result but a slow and inevitable return to evidence once the fire dies down) if you try to do it that way, your attention or concentration can never be given to your case in the undivided way it deserves or you intend.

While I concede that I have always leaned toward the rational <span style='font-family:Arial'>(your \"side\"), I must also admit that I can not completely discount a person's view of the future when it rings so true in my mind. It honestly doesn't matter to me if John Titor was a time travelling nay-saying nutbug or a nut named </span>-- Lagnar 2002
[/center]

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

You just earned a spot on my favorite posts list Excellent post man, well said. This is the kind of conversation I come here to see...

 

[Keroscene]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Passive_Extremist\")</div>

So you're implying JT was literally waiting for an answer?






I still don't understand how \"JT didn't say it like I would've said it\" argument is proving anything... You realize not everyone is the same?




Well, it would've been half true, he mentioned going to war also.

So he just happened to mention two significant events happening in our near future, that no one could've guessed before 9/11. What do you think the odds of that are?



And that we were going to war with them over it...How convienently you ignore that part..



Debate we were going to war with iraq over WMD? Why the hell would he have expected anyone to take up that argument back in 2000?




You're entire argument is based around emotion, you admitted JT's stories logic is unbreakable, you're just trying to be argumentive now..apparently the JT story makes you feel insecure..





Atleast you finally admit your argument is an emotional one..





I guess if you wanna ignore someone \"just mentioning \" events in our time unfolding exactly the way he implied, when no one could've guessed it, go right ahead. He could've said \" Will there be tsunami in asia in 2004 or is that just liberals trying to scare you about global warming?\" And you'd say he still wasn't making a prediction..




Everything ends eventually, that isn't much of a guess..[/b]

1) I was thinking if JT asked me that question in 2000-01, could I give an actual awnser.
2)I do realize everyone is not the same, did I say they were? I am sorry but don't remember saying or implying that. I thought I made it clear this was my opinion, and you asked for it. It's not my fault if people agree. I think you should have directed this question towards yourself.
3)What makes you so sure no one could've guessed another war with Iraq besides JT? The same information was available to him in 2000 that was available to everyone else. When was Iraq ever stable?

I will attempt to debate the question from the world view of 2000 that Iraq did have nukes or not since it seemed impossible to some.

Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?

A)No, I am not surprised that they have nukes now, they had a program in the past and with Iraqs and the US's intentions on control over all of the oil in the middle east what more persuasive reason to take control than a nuclear power. It's not BS just made up to accept another war, will it take an ICBM to drop on your head to prove my point?
B)Of course it's BS that they have nukes, their nuclear program was terminated after the Gulf War. When there is another war it will obviously be for financial gain to benefit the US, I bet they never find nukes there.

When I hear WMD I think of biological weapons too, not just nuclear ones.

The more I read it, the more it sounds to me like he thinks they have nukes, "And that we were going to war with them over it...How convienently you ignore that part.." - They never did have nukes, and everyone thought they did, and really does sound like he did to.

I only noticed one significant event he mentioned, the war. This also makes me wonder if he is refferring to the nukes for his holocaust or for the actual war that is going on now. I guess it will always be half true, even if we never went to war, one could argue it wasn't even this war he was refferring to, but to the world war he spoke of.

I see now why it is impossible to debunk this statement. Interpretation. Not because of facts, but beliefs and opinion. The only way to totally discredit this is if Iraq never existed. It's existance seems to be the only definite fact in the question.

I'm starting to feel like that guy in Scanners when his head explodes.

It was fun.

 

[Goodwin]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

Yes well done, Lagnar.

You are indeed articulate and I agree with many, many things that you say. Not least of which was the part about their being an as-yet unestablished objective truth. Believe it or not, I have always been in complete agreement with you on this point.

And when you say...

when my mind tells me something [of it's own fabrication], and I hear that same "trend" from some other source [no matter what the source], I am forced to take note, and not just totally disregard it as baloney


I agree with you also, despite the fact that ( you must surely agree ) the same instinct makes the psychologically vulnerable open to exploitation by charlatans, conmen and the unscrupulous.

However, as much as I liked what you wrote, I do fundamentally disagree with the inferance that I operate somehow from the ostrich-like desire for "everything to be ok."

Not so. Only a fool would not be alert to the very real dangers of the day and the concerning events that take place around us. I am very much an individual whose eyes are open to your red flags and the delicate balance our so-called civilisation exists in.

But balance is something I'm also very concerned with. It would be so easy to see every negative news event as confirmation of another step towrds the abyss. But I have two problems with this.

A. I don't believe there has ever been a single generation on this planet that didn't believe that apocalypse may just be around the corner - pre-nuclear societies in particular. Its simply part of the human make-up.

B. Its all very well to see the writing on the wall but (and perhaps you are right to lecture me on this) if I come across as hostile, its because I see precious little balance on this board. Too many people here glean their ideas and confirmations from internet news stories that do not meet enough of the rigorous standards of real journalism. Sensational headline grabbing tabloidism that any self-respecting, well-trained journalist would sneer at as irresponsible.


From today's 'DRUDGE REPORT' :

June 16, 2005

Archbishop hits out at web-based media 'nonsense'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

NI_MPU('middle');THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for ?paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry?. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was ?close to that of unpoliced conversation?.

In a lecture to media professionals, politicians and church leaders at Lambeth Palace in London last night, Dr Williams wondered whether a balance could be struck between the professionalism of the classical media and the relative disorder of online communication.

Dr Williams also extended his wide-ranging critique of journalistic practice to the traditional media, arguing that there are ?embarrassingly low levels of trust? in the profession and that claims about what is in the public interest need closer scrutiny. He called for a ?more realistic, less fevered? approach to stories by journalists and added: ?There is a difference between exposing deceptions that sustain injustice and attacking confidentialities or privacies that in some sense protect the vulnerable.?

He attacked the ?high levels of adversarial and suspicious probing? that send the clear message that any kind of concealment means ?guilty until proved innocent?, and he challenged journalists and broadcasters to attempt to regain lost public confidence.

Dr Williams said that the way news is packaged inhibits the public from becoming engaged with issues and understanding them.

He added: ?There is a tension at the heart of the journalistic enterprise. Its justification is that it promises to deliver what other sources can?t ? information that is needed to equip the reader or viewer or listener for a more free and significant role as a human agent. But at the same time it is bound to a method and a rhetoric that treats its public as consumers and the information it purveys as a commodity.?

He conceded that journalism has its own pressures that help to determine the way stories emerge and added: ?Journalistic communication is bound to a market model, whose ambiguities we have looked at; it is not going to change overnight by moral exhortation.? But he still called for a reassessment of news values. He said: ?There are undoubtedly facts which would be of huge interest to a certain sort of public, but are not by any stretch of the imagination matters of public interest in the sense that not knowing them creates or prolongs a seriously unjust situation.?

The way most news is packaged and marketed tends to work against real engagement and deeper public understanding, creating a parallel universe remote from most people?s real experience, he said. He added: ?The assumptions of the way public interest is often appealed to in the present climate look less impressive under scrutiny. ?If the profession is to perform its necessary job, some aspects of current practice are lethally damaging to it, and contribute to the embarrassingly low level of trust in the profession, especially in the UK, shown in most opinion polls.? He recommended a greater willingness to correct mistakes in order to offset ?the deep cynicism that is generated by a marked habit of reluctance to apologise or explain?. Dr Williams said that it was important not to scapegoat the media and praised the courage of journalists such as Frank Gardner of the BBC who have promoted ?moral change and vision?.







Even if 'Titor' set up what Passive Extremist keeps describing as 'unbreakable logic' into his story, at the very least people should be looking at the whole picture of world events, the positive included if they are really, (as you claim you are) looking for the real and objective truth. Where are the links on this board to the positive stories in the world that show the political battles that are taking place right now to create a world very different to the one Titor predicted?


Too often, any talk about not believing what we read is geared towards the notion that there's some sinister conspiracy designed to cover up governments wrong-doing. I'm all in favour of a healthy skepticism of the press - but why, oh why does it not work the other way as well. When dealing with the doom and gloom merchants of internet tabloidism?

Is that why so many Titor-believers are so convinced that there is an inevitability to all of this? Because there is no balance. Where is the balance?

And I must say I chuckled at the following

you must have at least noticed things starting to go "down hill


Again...I can't imagine there was ever a geneartion that didn't see things in this light. My own grandmother was always banging on about how people and things were better back in her day. As I'm sure her grandmother did before her. And all the previous generations before that, too!

As I've said before, I also have a real problem with this 'it doesn't matter if he's a time traveller or not' business. Which brings me to your following comment, Lagnar...


How can ANYONE argue for truth that isn't known?


Well, that's simple really. You just have to take a side. This is one part of your post that made little sense to me. If it wasn't for people taking sides and vigorously arguing for truth that isn't known there would be few of the discoveries we now take for granted. No Columbus...no Galileo or Copernicus....no Watson and Crick. The world might still be flat.

So as the years pass and the JT foundation makes its money based on an unprovable truth, my comparison to the development of a religion may well prove accurate. If that happens, I'll be happy to know I was one of the people arguing against it.

The future is unwritten.

P.S. LetThereBeLight...I would be happy to respond to your "accusation" that I conform to "That type of person". Unfortunately, I really didn't understand most of what you wrote.

 

[Hemoman]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

Big Kudos Lagnar. I wish there were more posts on the entire internet like that and you're a credit to this site and any debate. Good on ya!

 

[Keroscene]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

'it doesn't matter if he's a time traveller or not'

This is what bothers me as well. It's almost like people saying they are willing to condone his theories even if he is proven a liar. I wish it was as easy for me to convince someone after I was caught lying. Maybe if I just said "I don't care if you believe me or not", everyone will. I can't even convince people when I offer only the truth.

 

[Roth Joint]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

Lagnar,

Don't waste anymore time on "Goodwin."

I assume you are familiair with the saying: "do not cast pearls before swines"

The coming months will be of utter importance. And don't forget to watch the new "crop circles."

Roth Joint

 

[Keroscene]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

I just was reading the original JT posts and seen someone ask him about who won the Stanley Cup in 01. Man, I hope they come out of that lock-out or hockey might not be to big in the future. It surprises me too that hockey survives in the future after a nuclear holocaust, maybe its all the nuclear winters. I wonder if they have functional indoor rinks in Florida after the holocaust? He must like hockey an awful lot to remember who won the Stanley Cup when he was a kid. Maybe they had a militia hockey team or something. The possibilities are endless.

Also I was interested in a Kevin Spooner who asked JT some very interesting questions to help validate his story. I was wondering if Pamela knew him? I did a google search and could'nt believe that this guy develops tons of websites for buisnesses in Florida. Is this just coincedince or not? Please tell me this isn't the same guy.
http://www.kevinspooner.com/portfolio.htm

 

[StarLord]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

Goodwin

Have you considered a possibility that Titor is not a single person but rather a construct of several disgruntled past or present govt. workers; that their positions in various areas lends to them obvious forseeable happenings in the future rendered by computer senarios?

 

[Keroscene]

Re: John Titor Update: Exclusive Report!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>

Goodwin
Have you considered a possibility that Titor is not a single person but rather a construct of several disgruntled past or present govt. workers; that their positions in various areas lends to them obvious forseeable happenings in the future rendered by computer senarios?[/b]

Big Computers?