Debunking Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?

[Crethox]

The debate between you (Sean) and Peregrini I suppose lol

 

[temporal recon]

Temporal Recon;
You claim to have this evidence yet I don't see it. You talk about it but you don't show it. Shall we just take your word that it exists and proves JT was real or would you care to post it or links to it so I and others can look it over and decide for our selves? Or, are you just peddling BS?

By all means. The evidence has been published and available for a little over a year now. Conviction of a Time Traveler. I don't really do interviews any longer, but they are still available online. Some on this forum have read the book. You should ask them if they found it enlightening and useful.

Of course some may say, "why not simply post your proof here and we can debate it?"
First of all, let's understand there is no such thing as "proof." All we can ask for is evidence. There is a difference.

Also, Darby tried that tack when I first announced the book's existence. It is a fairly transparent strategy which I will not entertain. If the evidence were so simple as could be presented in a simple forum post, I doubt I would have bothered with a 300 page book. I am an accidental author and by no means make a living at this. It quite literally took me 300 pages to present the argument completely and cogently. A forum post is simply inadequate for the evidence I uncovered.

Also, there is something to be said for working for your understanding. If I were to simply present my evidence on an online forum, it cheapens and lessens its impact and simply becomes another easily dismissed "theory." If you want to know the actual truth, you're gonna have to work for it.

No, it wasn't the answer you're looking for, but the truth rarely is.

 

[Peregrini]

Oh. Now I understand. You're just trying to sell your book and garner investors while you promo a movie. Perhaps I missed this in your earlier posts.
You now have ZERO credibility. Not that you had much more than that before. Good luck with your business venture. Perhaps you will make a bunch of money profiting from a hoax. Who knows, maybe you were part of it too.

If I were to simply present my evidence on an online forum, it cheapens and lessens its impact and simply becomes another easily dismissed "theory."

read as "I can't profit from posts."

PS. I see NO "truth" in your answer.

 

[temporal recon]

Oh. Now I understand. You're just trying to sell your book and garner investors while you promo a movie. Perhaps I missed this in your earlier posts.
You now have ZERO credibility. Not that you had much more than that before. Good luck with your business venture. Perhaps you will make a bunch of money profiting from a hoax. Who knows, maybe you were part of it too.

If I were to simply present my evidence on an online forum, it cheapens and lessens its impact and simply becomes another easily dismissed "theory."

read as "I can't profit from posts."

PS. I see NO "truth" in your answer.

Thank you for your well wishes.

Though I fail to understand how my credibility affects discovered facts. My discoveries as they relate to the Titor story are just that, discoveries of fact. My credibility (for better or worse) do not affect the immutability of these newly discovered facts.

I would like to take this opportunity to correct a misconception you and possibly others may have. The movie and documentary are not mine. They are separate projects by others. After having read my book (and impressed with the level of research I suppose), I was asked to contribute as the technical expert for the movie. I am merely promoting them as worthy projects.

And as to your closing statement, I would direct you to my signature line, something that I feel sums up nicely the attitudes surrounding those who attempt to discredit a story with no easy answers, but answers nonetheless.

 

[Peregrini]

Facts come from actual proof....
Actual proof does not come from speculation which is all you or anyone else has regarding John Titor. There are no facts to newly discover. Unless of course, if John Titor returns and appears in the middle of Time Square in front of hundreds of witnesses. That might be considered new discoveries of fact.
Here's what John said;

Posted by John Titor on 01-28-2001 06:35 AM
My initial flight was from 2036 to 1975 (61 yrs). I then went from 1975 to 2000 (25 yrs.) Later this year, one of two favorable windows will open and I will return to my 2036 (35 yrs.) I am here now for personal reasons. The web page is not mine. I have been speaking online for about three months and the page is a collection of the various documents and pictures I have sent to other individuals.
Also, I realize there is no way for anyone to believe me with absolute certainty so I hope I'm at least entertaining. You may be interested to know that even in 2036, there are a large number of people who don’t believe in time travel. Are you sure the world is round?
Posted by John Titor on 01-29-2001 09:10 PM
How do you figure I have easy access? I can appreciate your skepticism but I must admit I’m confused by your choice of questions. I fail to understand why a time traveler would be expected to know the details you ask. Right now, do any of you know the details of the first week in February for 1970? For that matter, could you tell me from memory if it rained in Atlanta last week? Is a sports almanac a required or expected piece of equipment for all “time machines”?
At least you didn’t ask the standard “what stocks should I buy” question. Interesting that no one ever asks which stocks to sell. I’m sure my answers will be quite unsatisfying but you should know I do not want your unshakable faith nor do I think anyone should give it so easily if a “time traveler” were able to answer those questions.
In fact, over this medium, it’s impossible to prove I’m a time traveler, therefore, it’s impossible to believe. Actually, I depend on that a great deal so I don’t have to worry about being picked up by your friendly law enforcement officers. What do you think they would do with two micro-singularities?
So here goes...
(1). I have no idea.
(2). It looks like some sort of motorized scooter. What do you think “IT” is?
(3). I know this one but I think it would be unfair and immoral for anyone to win a bet based on something I’ve told them.

The Anomalies Network : John Titor - I am from 2036

Finally a word on The Holy Grail of the John Titor enthusiasts;
The "Transcendent" IBM 5100
Available in 12 models providing 16 KB, 32 KB, 48 KB or 64 KB of main storage, the 5100 sold for between $8,975 and $19,975 (between $38.8 thousand and $86.3 thousand in today's dollars).
Introductory price
From $8,975 (BASIC with 16KB) to $19,975 (BASIC+APL with 64KB)
[the figures I got were $35956 to $80025 in 2010 $]
IBM 5100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, are you going to try to tell me that JT got one of these from his Grandfather and returned to 2036 with it? Obviously these things weren't cheap. No one at IBM missed this "expensive" device. It went on the market in September 1975. What date was it that JT said he went to in 1975 to get it? Believers like to claim, " no one knew of the 5100's ability's except John". That is 'complete' BS. It was known to hundreds, most of whom could care less, and it was being discussed on the internet in 1999. Perhaps even before but no one cares enough to look it up.

If you want to know the actual truth, you're gonna have to work for it.

I know the actual truth, to the same extent that you do. I have worked for it but, I have no reason or need to read "your" book for "your" version of it.

And as to your closing statement, I would direct you to my signature line, something that I feel sums up nicely the attitudes surrounding those who attempt to discredit a story with no easy answers, but answers nonetheless.

Like opportunity, [Truth] is something you have to be ready for to recognize it.
-John Titor

Here's one better suited to your "Truth"
"There's a sucker born every minute."
P.T. Barnum (P.T.is credited with this but actual authorship is unknown.)

 

[temporal recon]

Touch a nerve, did I, Peregrini? Another quote seems unusually apropos here:
"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."
Rather than quoting your lengthy post, I'll just break it down into bitesize bits.

Facts come from actual proof....

I think you may have missed the distinction between evidence and proof, my friend.

In Conviction of a Time Traveler, I state quite clearly that I am not providing "proof." I can only provide evidence. As I said before, there is a difference between the two. And, to take your opening statement to its correct and proper conclusion, evidence comes from actual facts, not the other way around as you assert.

Maybe this is why you haven't made much progress in the Titor question?
But this distinction between proof and evidence seems a bit pedestrian of a disagreement, so let's move on from that.
Admittedly, the distinction is a subtle one.

Actual proof does not come from speculation which is all you or anyone else has regarding John Titor. There are no facts to newly discover.

And you know this exactly how, Mr. Peregrini? As you said, you haven't reviewed the evidence I have compiled and presented.
Another quote that I particularly enjoy seems relevant here as well:
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."
and similarly:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Peregrini,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Posted by John Titor on 01-28-2001 06:35 AM
Also, I realize there is no way for anyone to believe me with absolute certainty so I hope I'm at least entertaining. You may be interested to know that even in 2036, there are a large number of people who don’t believe in time travel. Are you sure the world is round?
...
In fact, over this medium, it’s impossible to prove I’m a time traveler, therefore, it’s impossible to believe. Actually, I depend on that a great deal so I don’t have to worry about being picked up by your friendly law enforcement officers. What do you think they would do with two micro-singularities?

I recognize you are trying to use John's own words to support the idea that no "proof" can exist to support or debunk the Titor story. I might have gotten behind that logic in 2001.

But we are now 12 years later and "time waits for no man," so to speak. Those who developed their opinions about John in 2000, concluding that it couldn't be proven one way or another can be forgiven for this shortsighted viewpoint. Much of the evidence I (and others) discovered hadn't been invented yet. Again, events have transpired and technologies have been developed that provide a great deal of evidence in favor of John's claims.

Finally a word on The Holy Grail of the John Titor enthusiasts;
The "Transcendent" IBM 5100

Holy Grail? Not really. This aspect of the Titor story was a minor chapter. The revelation of one of the 5100 quirks was not the only interesting aspect about the 5100.
I didn't really spend too much time on the 5100 information in relation to the other evidence I discovered. Why? Well, remember, we have no independent corroborating information that this portion of the Titor story is even true.

So, are you going to try to tell me that JT got one of these from his Grandfather and returned to 2036 with it? Obviously these things weren't cheap. No one at IBM missed this "expensive" device.

Other than the retail prices you just quoted, that's quite a bit of speculation you're engaging in. Can you cite the facts that support your assertions?

While I admittedly have not done a cost analysis of the component parts of the 5100, I admire your investigation into this minor aspect of the story. Are you assuming that John's Grandfather (identified in the book, by the way) provided John a retail version of the 5100? Are you assuming that he didn't simply build him another? Are you assuming they were in short supply?

I wonder, how do you suppose R&D costs are accounted for on IBM's books back in 1975? As I'm sure you already know, they are considered sunk costs and probably wouldn't be missed as they are already accounted for. But I'm sure you knew that. Good catch though, even though it didn't make it into the book as evidence, per se.

Believers like to claim, " no one knew of the 5100's ability's except John". That is 'complete' BS. It was known to hundreds, most of whom could care less, and it was being discussed on the internet in 1999. Perhaps even before but no one cares enough to look it up.

This is interesting, Peregrini. Can you cite who was commenting on it and when and where? Generalized statements aren't evidence, or proof or facts. I don't discount your assertion, but it requires, in legal terms, "foundation."

I know the actual truth, to the same extent that you do.

You continue to assert this. This is incorrect. I would recommend anyone interested in learning the current state of our understanding and the evidence that currently exists to allow for the fact that maybe there might be more information out there than we initially thought.

 

[Peregrini]

Touch a nerve, did I, Peregrini?

No, I have no exposed nerves when it comes to this story. I do call BS'ers out now and then. If you had been open and honest when you began posting, that you had authored a book about JT, everyone would have known your motivation regarding JT and could react to you then, according to their own feelings.

Sam, you and others have asked me to provide these usernames or identities of the other TT'ers. I can respect this curiosity. But, before I do this, interest in Titor must move beyond his posts and even accept that their understanding is not the actual truth. Are people willing to give up their sacred cows if it meant learning the actual truth? In my experience, sadly, people are not willing to change their worldview to understand the universe better. For those of you who have read Conviction of a Time Traveler, you will note that I mentioned these steel bars that inhibit a person's growth and expanded understanding of the phenomena itself.
temporal recon, May 13, 2012 #28

You became a member here on Dec. 12 2011. Your first post was on Dec 13, 2011 yet, this seems to be the first time you admitted involvement with the book.

By all means. The evidence has been published and available for a little over a year now. Conviction of a Time Traveler. I don't really do interviews any longer, but they are still available online. Some on this forum have read the book. You should ask them if they found it enlightening and useful.
Of course some may say, "why not simply post your proof here and we can debate it?"
First of all, let's understand there is no such thing as "proof." All we can ask for is evidence. There is a difference.
Also, Darby tried that tack when I first announced the book's existence. It is a fairly transparent strategy which I will not entertain. If the evidence were so simple as could be presented in a simple forum post, I doubt I would have bothered with a 300 page book. I am an accidental author and by no means make a living at this. It quite literally took me 300 pages to present the argument completely and cogently. A forum post is simply inadequate for the evidence I uncovered.
Also, there is something to be said for working for your understanding. If I were to simply present my evidence on an online forum, it cheapens and lessens its impact and simply becomes another easily dismissed "theory." If you want to know the actual truth, you're gonna have to work for it.
No, it wasn't the answer you're looking for, but the truth rarely is.
temporal recon, Yesterday( 6/24/12) at 10:30 PM

Here you finally admit it is your book.

Also, Darby tried that tack when I first announced the book's existence.

When and where did you first announce the book's existance?

I know, Sam. Many questions. But your theory raises them. I would be very interested in your responses. And, as always, please identify the evidence you have for any of this, or conversely, identify when it is merely speculation.
Thank you
TR
temporal recon, May 21, 2012

Yet, you don't heed your own advice.

I think you may have missed the distinction between evidence and proof, my friend.

Semantics: a distinction without a difference
fact noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
proof noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration
proof
1. any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc, of something
ev·i·dence noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
evidence
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
spec·u·la·tion noun
1.the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2.a single instance or process of consideration.
3.a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4.conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
I haven't mixed the choice of words up. I used the ones I wanted to, how I wanted to.

Peregrini said: Actual proof does not come from speculation which is all you or anyone else has regarding John Titor. There are no facts to newly discover.
And you know this exactly how, Mr. Peregrini? As you said, you haven't reviewed the evidence I have compiled and presented.

I know this because you do not have Mr. John Titor to ask if your evidence is "correctly" interpreted. He is not here to be cross examined by anyone. I do not need to see what you have speculated about and made assumptions about. If you are speculating about any thing in your book, that does not appear in any of the original posts, you have inadmissible evidence.

Another quote that I particularly enjoy seems relevant here as well:
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."

(Arthur Schopenhauer, you forgot to credit your source)

and similarly:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Peregrini,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(He doth quote Shakespeare)

Much of the evidence I (and others) discovered hadn't been invented yet.

So, you admit you are inventing evidence?

Again, events have transpired and technologies have been developed that provide a great deal of evidence in favor of John's claims.

Name just a few.

While I admittedly have not done a cost analysis of the component parts of the 5100, I admire your investigation into this minor aspect of the story. Are you assuming that John's Grandfather (identified in the book, by the way) provided John a retail version of the 5100? Are you assuming that he didn't simply build him another? Are you assuming they were in short supply?

I never assume. It doesn't matter if it was a retail version or built special for him... the parts were expensive...the unit was expensive... there is no information available as to how many were built or sold.

I wonder, how do you suppose R&D costs are accounted for on IBM's books back in 1975? As I'm sure you already know, they are considered sunk costs and probably wouldn't be missed as they are already accounted for. But I'm sure you knew that.

R&D costs are different than the cost of producing a working unit... which John must have gotten or his trip would have been for naught.

Peregrini said: I know the actual truth, to the same extent that you do.
You continue to assert this. This is incorrect. I would recommend anyone interested in learning the current state of our understanding and the evidence that currently exists to allow for the fact that maybe there might be more information out there than we initially thought.

It's curious that you would assert that you "know my mind". I have offered to put "my actual truth" up next to yours and let them be compared side by side by you and I and everyone else. But you continue to avoid this.
Here is an offer to help dispel our argument.
Present your choice of any of the evidence from your book here. A snippet or two if you will. A paragraph where you lay out your evidence and explain your position on the evidence and how it "proves" John Titor was a "real" time traveler.
You may pique someone's interest in your book. Shoot, you may even sell one.

 

[Peregrini]

Peregrini said: Finally a word on The Holy Grail of the John Titor enthusiasts;
The "Transcendent" IBM 5100
Holy Grail? Not really. This aspect of the Titor story was a minor chapter. The revelation of one of the 5100 quirks was not the only interesting aspect about the 5100.
I didn't really spend too much time on the 5100 information in relation to the other evidence I discovered. Why? Well, remember, we have no independent corroborating information that this portion of the Titor story is even true.

I missed responding to this shocking revelation.
You dismiss the 5100 as a minor chapter? According to the Titor story IT was the primary reason for his time traveling in the first place. If it isn't true...none of his story is. Your level of understanding of the Titor story tells me all I need to know about what is in your book. I am glade I didn't waste any time reading it.

 

[temporal recon]

I know this because you do not have Mr. John Titor to ask if your evidence is "correctly" interpreted. He is not here to be cross examined by anyone. I do not need to see what you have speculated about and made assumptions about. If you are speculating about any thing in your book, that does not appear in any of the original posts, you have inadmissible evidence.

Another quote that I particularly enjoy seems relevant here as well:
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."
(Arthur Schopenhauer, you forgot to credit your source)

Facts need no interpretation, they speak for themselves, Mr Peregrini. In Conviction of a Time Traveler all I do is present the evidence that did not yet exist in 2000 and had lay undiscovered until then. I allow the reader to draw their own (unavoidable) conclusions. As a matter of fact, I make it quite clear that no contortions of logic are required. Plain speaking facts are all they are, though admittedly, some chapters did get a little technical, say the Optical Frequency Comb section.

And my apologies for not naming who I was quoting. I was quoting from memory and had no idea who originally said that. Good use of Google though, Mr. Peregrini. It's a shame you don't put your, now apparent research skills to better use and learn the truth about current time travelers visiting us now.

So, you admit you are inventing evidence?

Again, events have transpired and technologies have been developed that provide a great deal of evidence in favor of John's claims.

I believe you've missed me meaning here again.

I never assume. It doesn't matter if it was a retail version or built special for him... the parts were expensive...the unit was expensive... there is no information available as to how many were built or sold.

I wonder, how do you suppose R&D costs are accounted for on IBM's books back in 1975? As I'm sure you already know, they are considered sunk costs and probably wouldn't be missed as they are already accounted for. But I'm sure you knew that.

R&D costs are different than the cost of producing a working unit... which John must have gotten or his trip would have been for naught.

Can you spot your assumption in this statement, Mr. Peregrini?

It's curious that you would assert that you "know my mind". I have offered to put "my actual truth" up next to yours and let them be compared side by side by you and I and everyone else. But you continue to avoid this.
Here is an offer to help dispel our argument.
Present your choice of any of the evidence from your book here. A snippet or two if you will. A paragraph where you lay out your evidence and explain your position on the evidence and how it "proves" John Titor was a "real" time traveler.
You may pique someone's interest in your book. Shoot, you may even sell one.

The book was accidental. It was originally intended simply as an email to a friend to show him what I found but it quickly grew too large for just a simple email. As I've said before, to properly present the evidence, it must be done in an orderly fashion. Simply providing a list of all the facts as evidence here is insufficient. The reason this is so is because any individual fact can be explained away as mere coincidence or conspiracy. But when you put all the facts together (as a prosecuting attorney would for a jury) and present the entire body of evidence as a whole, the conclusion is unavoidable.
If I were to, as you put it, present just a "snippet," that snippet would be attacked individually. Intellectually dishonest debunkers could easily call it coincidence and need no evidence to support this claim. Likewise, any piece of evidence could be attacked individually by an equally invented argument against its existence, again with no requirement for evidence on behalf of the debunker. I have seen this happen too often in the last 12 years to allow it to happen again. The subject matter is much too important to allow a debunker to dismiss Titor's statements so carelessly.

Now that I know that Titor was a real time traveler (supported by evidence leading to only one conclusion), I have taken to preparing for the inevitable event that will fundamentally change this world. And, unfortunately, it will happen soon. The book's aim was to do one thing really, and one thing only: to present the actual evidence to people who are curious enough about what Titor claimed and combat the careless debunking done by others in the previous 12 years.

I wonder, when people who normally might have taken Titor's claims as real and actually prepared for what's about to happen, yet they find themselves convinced by debunkers (such as yourself Mr. Peregrini) that what Titor said was bogus so they decided to do nothing in preparation, will you and others like you feel any guilt for their suffering?

If I knew the truth (as I understood it at the time), how could I not tell the world that 12 years of debunking by intellectually dishonest people was untrue?

The rest of your post is merely attacking the messenger, so I won't bother responding to it.

 

[temporal recon]

I missed responding to this shocking revelation.
You dismiss the 5100 as a minor chapter? According to the Titor story IT was the primary reason for his time traveling in the first place. If it isn't true...none of his story is. Your level of understanding of the Titor story tells me all I need to know about what is in your book. I am glade I didn't waste any time reading it.

My, my, Peregrini. You certainly are the gift that keeps on giving.
Yes, Titor's purported mission to 1975 has never been confirmed. The evidence that I discovered far overshadowed the quirks in the 5100 (only one of which you seem to be aware of), thus rendering the 5100 portion of the story just that, a portion.

I find it odd and amusing that you are now placed in the position of defending Titor's storyline, in spite of the fact you claim (without evidence) that it is a hoax.

In response to your assertion that I was somehow hiding my small book project in some way, allow me to say that this is a no-win situation.
If I were to announce ahead of every post that I had written a book answering all the questions we have all had about the Titor story (which is exactly what my book does), any statement or piece of evidence I provided would be seen through the prism of "commericalism" or shameless profiteering and self promotion.
If, on the other hand, I do not mention the book and simply participate in the debate, I am now accused of hiding my book; luring unsuspecting readers into buying the book somehow by not promoting it.
So which would I rather be seen as? A shameless self promoter or a nefarious "hider" of my book? The latter most definitely argues against the former I would say. Nonetheless, I chose to not make the book an issue, (the facts DO speak for themselves after all). The link to the book's website has always ever been part of my signature, so I doubt I could credibly be accused of "hiding" my involvement in my own book.

Seriously, Peregrini: is this all there is to your argument against Titor? Attacking the messenger?