Debunking Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?

[Peregrini]

Ole Webster sure gets a workout at your house, doesn't he? I wonder if anyone else reading these posts notices the irony?

It might be of value for you to consider a dictionary once in a while. You speak of irony, do you even know what it is?

Is that an assumption I see, Mr. Peregrini? Assuming you have turned over every rock on the internet in search of the truth of Mr. Titor? My favorite quote seems oddly appropriate here again:

You ask this while assuming yourself. Funny. Please look up the word. You're embarrassing yourself. I'll point out your misunderstanding later, if necessary.
Regarding turning over every rock... Have you?

Peregrini said:

John Titor posting was twelve years ago. You never knew John. You never spoke with him.
You never met anyone else on the team. You do not have info on any current info. you are simply
relying on information in posts from twelve years ago. (this part is PamelaM's)

I concede you are in a unique position having had personal contact with Titor thru e-mails and whatever other means but, that doesn't make "what" you know "true". It is also my present understanding that you have had no contact with him since he left. That makes what you know 12 years old also.

Can anyone spot the assumption Mr. Peregrini is making in this portion of his post?

This is the third reference to an assumption by me just in this post. Do you know what an assumption is? You keep referring to them so, please, enlighten us all with what the assumption is.
I look forward to your highly informed reply.

 

[temporal recon]

It might be of value for you to consider a dictionary once in a while. You speak of irony, do you even know what it is?

Is that an assumption I see, Mr. Peregrini? Assuming you have turned over every rock on the internet in search of the truth of Mr. Titor? My favorite quote seems oddly appropriate here again:

You ask this while assuming yourself. Funny. Please look up the word. You're embarrassing yourself. I'll point out your misunderstanding later, if necessary.
Regarding turning over every rock... Have you?

Sorry, that was no assumption on my part, you said it yourself:

If there is newly discovered evidence, other than speculation and conjecture by all the "experts", it certainly hasn't been discussed anywhere on the internet that I know of and in my search for info about Titor I would have found something.

And to help you in your understanding of the difference between "evidence" and proof," I submit the following from Black's Law Dictionary (Webster doesn't quite cut it)

Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact <the bloody glove is the key piece of evidence for the prosecution>
-note, the glove is not PROOF according to Black's. It is evidence.

Proof: The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence; the persuasive effect of evidence in the mind of a fact-finder.

And for good measure

A FACT: Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality <it is a fact that all people are mortal>

As you and the others reading this thread can plainly see, the legal community is firmly behind my, ehem, definitions of Evidence, Proof and Fact. What can be plainly seen are that:
Facts exist independent of whether you test them or not,
Facts comprise evidence, evidence does not create facts. Considering you fancy yourself saavy enough in logic to point out the perceived deficiencies in others' conclusions, you might find this interesting and modify your thinking.
and finally, Evidence creates proof, not the other way around as you mistakenly believe. I see no problem in your ignorance in this regard as, as I said before, it is a subtle difference commonly confused by the lay person.

You also interestingly bring up "Circumstantial Evidence" as if Circumstantial evidence is somehow "lesser." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Allow me to pull out my Black's Law dictionary one more time:

Circumstantial Evidence is: Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.
What this means (or infers, if you like) for our discussion here is that

ALL EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A DIRECT OBSERVATION​

is circumstantial. If I may be so bold as to quote myself:

Very few guilty verdicts in courts of law today rely on 100% proof that a crime was committed by a particular defendant. More often than not, circumstantial evidence is proof enough to convict someone and commit them to prison or even death. When looking for the “smoking gun” that would put a criminal in prison, many juries realize that it is extremely rare to find. There are no easy answers that lead to a 100% certainty that a person committed a crime. ... Rather, they must make a judgment based on the preponderance of the evidence presented.Circumstantial evidence may not be the proverbial smoking gun, but the existence of gun smoke in the vicinity of a warm gun is circumstantial evidence that the gun has been recently fired. Furthermore, the existence of gunpowder residue on a particular individual's hand in close proximity to a warm, smoking, gun is circumstantial evidence that he recently held and fired the gun in question. Thus, our jury now has reasonable doubt that our accused person actually committed the crime.
...
In investigating the Titor story, I quickly came to the same realization that many before me did: 100% proof doesn't exist in this case. Subsequently, I applied the same standard for evidence as a court of law. While we don't have eyewitness testimony of John Titor arriving on our (to use a term he coined) “worldline” from an unimpeachable witness, we do have information that he provided to us that we can now, 10 years later, intelligently assess with a little bit of intellectual honesty. .
-Temporal Recon, Conviction of a Time Traveler,
the First Credible Investigation Into John Titor

All I have ever stated before is this:

1. It has been 12 years since a man claiming to be a time traveler posted on internet forums.
2. This man, using the name John Titor made numerous predictions.
3. Some of these predictions were presented as predictions, and some were not presented as such.
4. Some of the predictions for our future were impossible to measure as accurate because they hadn't been invented yet.
5. I successfully identified John Titor as a true time traveler by successfully identifying the predictions that didn't appear to be predictions and investigated their origins and inventors.
6. These investigated claims comprise evidence and establish facts (of the events' and inventions existence).

That's all I can do: Provide the evidence to the reader and allow the reader to make up his own mind. If someone establishes an opinion without availing himself to all the available evidence, then that person holds a flawed opinion based on incomplete information.
By establishing a preconceived opinion based on less evidence than exists, that person is not qualified to be a juror and will forever be arguing from a position of weakness and ignorance.

And no, I don't speak for Pamela. I merely defend her when I can.

 

[Peregrini]

And to help you in your understanding of the difference between "evidence" and proof," I submit the following from Black's Law Dictionary (Webster doesn't quite cut it)

Well then, Let us compare;
My definition from Dictionary.com
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.

Your definition from Black's Law Dictionary (Webster doesn't quite cut it)
A FACT: Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality <it is a fact that all people are mortal>
Hmm These look the same.

My definition (same source)
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

Your definition (same source)
Proof: The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence; the persuasive effect of evidence in the mind of a fact-finder.
Hmm These look the same.

My definition (same source)
evidence
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

Your definition (same source)
Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact <the bloody glove is the key piece of evidence for the prosecution>
-note, the glove is not PROOF according to Black's. It is evidence.
Hmm These look the same too.

I have highlighted the pertinent parts for you.
Now, read this slowly. Maybe it will sink in this time.
Evidence is used to establish proof. If proof is established, the concept in question can progress to a fact. This pretty much says exactly what your Black's Law Dictionary states, just above.

You still need to look up assumption.

temporal recon said:
Is that an assumption I see, Mr. Peregrini? Assuming you have turned over every rock on the internet in search of the truth of Mr. Titor? My favorite quote seems oddly appropriate here again:

Peregrini said:
You ask this while assuming yourself. Funny. Please look up the word. You're embarrassing yourself. I'll point out your misunderstanding later, if necessary.
Regarding turning over every rock... Have you?

Temporal recon responds:
Sorry, that was no assumption on my part, you said it yourself:

temporal recon said:
"Assuming you have turned over every rock on the internet in search of the truth of Mr. Titor?"

Are these not "your" words? You said "assuming". You make the assumption, not I.

Regarding the circumstantial evidence, I am saying that your evidence is circumstantial, not direct observation. While it is admissible in court, any prosecutor will tell you he would rather have some hard evidence, while defense attorney will happily try to take it apart piece by piece. This, as you stated, is why you won't post your evidence here for review. ( will you call this an assumption too?)

A class in Logic would serve you well. Do you have a Community College close by you?

 

[temporal recon]

My definition from Dictionary.com

Thank you for providing an alternate source of definitions. I think we both can agree that defining terms is important to set the framework of any discussion. I think I'll stick with the legal definition of our terms, nonetheless considering Conviction of a Time Traveler (signed and personalized copies available at Conviction of a Time Traveler. Thanks Peregrini for telling me I would not be attacked and accepted for "admitting" I wrote a book!) was written to provide evidence for time travel within a legal framework understood by the lay person. Whether this evidence rises to the level of "proof" for the individual enough to "convict" John of being a Time Traveler, I leave up to the reader.
The chapters are short and it is a quick read. The book opens with an establishment of what exactly Circumstantial Evidence is and why, contrary to popular (and yours, Mr. Peregrini) belief it is not the the littler brother of, as you put it, "Hard Evidence" and can be just as convincing.
Oh, and by the by, Mr. Peregrini, I looked up the term "Hard Evidence" in the Legal Community's reference of record, Black's Law Dictionary and found this for all possible types of evidence: Adminicular, admissible, best, character, circumstantial, communicative, clear and convincing, competent, conclusive, conflicting, corroborating, credible, critical, cumulative, demeanor, demonstrative, derivative, direct, documentary, exclusive, exculpatory, expert, extrajudicial, extrinsic, fabricated, foundational, habit, immaterial, impeachment, incompetent, inculpatory, insufficient, intrinsic, irrelevant, judicial, etc etc.
What you and others will not find is your invented term of "Hard Evidence." While the term may be common in the lay community and episodes of LA Law, it is not a legal term.
I wrote Conviction of a Time Traveler to provide evidence and then simply "give it to the jury" to decide for themselves.

You still need to look up assumption.

No, I'm quite satisfied I understand the definition.

Are these not "your" words? You said "assuming". You make the assumption, not I.

I think you might have missed my point.

Regarding the circumstantial evidence, I am saying that your evidence is circumstantial, not direct observation. While it is admissible in court, any prosecutor will tell you he would rather have some hard evidence

I cannot claim to know the minds of "any prosecutor" (I'm curious, how do you? Quite a skill!!).
Considering you have not read Conviction of a Time Traveler (but claim to be perfectly capable to render judgements on the new discoveries it contains) you can be forgiven for not knowing that I have never claimed to have any evidence other than Circumstantial.

What I am telling those reading this thread (and which you so kindly brought up and gave me an opportunity to explain the difference) is that Circumstantial evidence is not somehow "lesser" in a legal sense. It is merely a different class of evidence (see above) lacking direct observation.

It is inferential (uh oh! time to pull out your dictionary.com bookmark!).

No jury is asked for 100% proof to sentence a man to death. They are only asked if there is
1) a preponderance of the evidence or
2) reasonable doubt.
As you brought "every" prosecutor into this conversation, "every" prosecutor "knows" that direct observation ("hard evidence" in your lay terms) very rarely is available in any given criminal case.

The Titor posts are a similar situation. No direct observation exists. So what are we left with? Well, in 2000, not much. Why? Because many of the things John spoke about didn't exist yet. We are now 12 years later and this is no longer the case. There is now mountains of evidence. All Conviction of a Time Traveler did was identify the evidence in his posts that are now apparent and present it cogently.

 

[Peregrini]

Well, a search for "hard evidence" gave me 19,800,000 results in 0.25 seconds. As I read a few of them I did realize my error. I am a scientist at heart. In science, evidence is often referred to as hard and soft. After all these years it is just second nature to use terms I am most familiar with. Sorry for any confusion.
Ok then;
Lets talk about continuity.
... et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
Horace...ars poetica

Translation for you or you can check it yourself
... and yet I also become annoyed whenever the great Homer nods off.
Horace...ars poetica
In modern Homeric scholarship many of Homer's "nods" are explicable as the consequences of the poem being retold and improvised by generations of oral poets. So in the second case cited above, it is likely that two different versions are being conflated: one version with an embassy of three people, another with just two people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_(fiction)

Translated logically for you;
Evidence (or facts or proof whatever you wish to call them) used by Titor experts, taken from all over the internet, interpreted by anyone with a computer, redisplayed as "proof" Titor was a "real" time traveler, will ( and I mean will...I do not assume it) become adulterated, contaminated, or corrupted. When you use this as the basis of a premise you have nothing useful. Only opinion, conjecture, and speculation. Remember the old computer axiom; Garbage in...Garbage out.
This is why I only used Titor's original posts and compared them to the "Real World". Do I still do this today? No. It wasn't that long ago that I examined it.
Nothing he said then provided any "evidence" to "prove" he was a "real" time traveler. Therefore I do not, can not, and will not accept "as fact" that he was a "real" time traveler.
There was no reason to believe his story 12 years ago. There is no reason to believe "that" has changed just because, over the past 12 years, the Titor enthusiasts have adjusted his original posts, added to their meaning, or otherwise changed "the intent at the time" to fit their fantasy.
I can see the reasons why some people want to, have to, continue to believe Titor was a time traveler. That's fine. Please continue. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you or be surprised or insulted when they don't.
I do not see this discussion heading anywhere important so I wonder, shall we continue?
Besides, and most importantly, when Samstwitch comes back, she is gonna be pissed, and when she yells at me, I am gonna point my finger straight at you and say, "It was his fault. He made me do it."

Thanks Peregrini for telling me I would not be attacked and accepted for "admitting" I wrote a book!)

Your welcome.

 

[temporal recon]

Well, a search for "hard evidence" gave me 19,800,000 results in 0.25 seconds.

I'm sure there's a point coming...

As I read a few of them I did realize my error. I am a scientist at heart.

but not in training or education as evidenced by your posts?

After all these years it is just second nature to use terms I am most familiar with.

Is it better to continue with the wrong, more familiar definitions?

Sorry for any confusion.

Making mistakes is how you learn. I am always willing to help someone learn something new. Your welcome.

Translated logically for you;

Thank you. I don't speak latin. I will, ehem, assume your translations are correct. While your definitive google search for the definition only took you .25 seconds, I just ain't got that kind of time.

Evidence (or facts or proof whatever you wish to call them)

Here's a good example to all those reading these posts why you keep failing to make any headway in the Titor question: you don't know the difference between facts, proof or evidence. I'm only going to lead this horse to water so many times before I decide the horse just isn't thirsty.

used by Titor experts, taken from all over the internet, interpreted by anyone with a computer, redisplayed as "proof" Titor was a "real" time traveler, will ( and I mean will...I do not assume it) become adulterated, contaminated, or corrupted.

This is true. Good thing that's not what I did, or else you might have a legitimate argument. Of course, you wouldn't know one way or another since you haven't read the book. Don't worry, you've still got time! By my analysis, I'd say less than 6 months. Feel free to stop by Conviction of a Time Traveler and order a signed copy today! Of course, it is also available on Amazon where you can read some great reviews about the book. Feel free to check it out and let everyone know the opinions of those who have actually READ the book.

When you use this as the basis of a premise you have nothing useful. Only opinion, conjecture, and speculation.

Yup. Again, good thing I didn't do that.

This is why I only used Titor's original posts and compared them to the "Real World".

Another reason you fail to make any progress and see the truth right in front of your face.

Nothing he said then provided any "evidence" to "prove" he was a "real" time traveler.

This was true in 2000. Not anymore. Want to learn more? Conviction of a Time Traveler

Therefore I do not, can not, and will not accept "as fact" that he was a "real" time traveler.

I wonder, and I should have posed this question from the very beginning:

What evidence are you willing to accept? ​

If there IS NO evidence that you will accept, then I'm afraid you're not a skeptic, you're a debunker.
I'm sure ole Webster is just waiting for you to pull him out again and get two more pesky definitions, right?

There is no reason to believe "that" has changed just because, over the past 12 years,

This is true. No facts have "changed" in 12 years, they've simply come into being. Does the fact that a jet aircraft doesn't exist in 1908 take away from the verifiable fact that it now exists in 2012?

the Titor enthusiasts have adjusted his original posts, added to their meaning, or otherwise changed "the intent at the time" to fit their fantasy.

I sure dislike sweeping generalizations such as these. You claim the Titor posts have been modified. Do you have any EVIDENCE of this happening? Or is this another....assumption that you're making (again)?
It's interesting how it seems that generally sweeping generalizations usually come from the most uninformed of us, don't you agree?

Just don't expect everyone to agree with you or be surprised or insulted when they don't.

Oh no, I'm not surprised at all. It's a typical reaction to be sure. What is truly awesome (awe-inspiring that is) is to watch how the expression changes as the evidence is presented to them. At a certain point, the lightbulb starts to turn on. Sure, it comes on, dimly at first, fighting against conventional wisdom, conventional wisdom propagated by those with similar uninformed opinions such as your own...but once the question is planted, it begins to germinate. ...sorry for mixing my metaphors.

I do not see this discussion heading anywhere important so I wonder, shall we continue?

Getting a little tuckered out are we, from constantly playing defense?
Thirsty yet, Mr. Peregrini?
If anyone else reading these posts have any questions, I welcome them.

 

[Peregrini]

What fun. It appears we shall continue.
Mr.Temporal Recon;
I have been civil, at least I believe so, with you so far. Yet, each additional post of yours appears more hostile than the previous. ( I hope I'm not making an assumption)
I am not the least bit tuckered out and no, I am not thirsty. At least not for what you have to offer.
Let's begin:
There are four times you have appealed to the "audience" for help.

This is for everyone reading this thread:

Post #58

As you and the others reading this thread can plainly see

Post #62

Here's a good example to all those reading these posts

Post #66

If anyone else reading these posts have any questions, I welcome them.

Post #66

I agree. You do need help.

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

Please, if you can possibly spare the time, list a few, or all, of my attacks against you. Not against your evidence, but you personally.
Here are some of yours;
You presume to call anyone who does not accept Titor's story (or is it if they don't believe your evidence about Titor's story) " intellectually dishonest":

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.

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?

You call me a failure:

Your failure to perceive seems to be at the root of your lack of progress in the Titor question.

Not from the evidence I've seen. Which is ok, really. But I would dissuade you from calling your failure to make progress in the Titor story as "proof" (to use your terms) that no other evidence exists.

You make fun of the fact that I "know how" to use a dictionary.

Ole Webster sure gets a workout at your house, doesn't he? I wonder if anyone else reading these posts notices the irony?

It is inferential (uh oh! time to pull out your dictionary.com bookmark!).

You claim I have invented a term.

What you and others will not find is your invented term of "Hard Evidence." While the term may be common in the lay community and episodes of LA Law, it is not a legal term.

You have referred to "lay" community or person like it is a bad thing, are you somehow above that station?
At this point I must ask, "Are you a lawyer? You act like "you think" you know the law."

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.

Funny, if anyone really cares to, they might look at posts #45 & #46, and decide which one is more lengthy.
(oh look, I've appealed to the "audience")

You question my training and education.

but not in training or education as evidenced by your posts?

Do you presume to know me? Do you know my training or education? Have I challenged your authority, education or, training? Don't misunderstand this. I am not angry or defensive. I have nothing to be defensive about. I am responding to your audacity.

Making mistakes is how you learn. I am always willing to help someone learn something new. Your welcome.

But, are you helping me learn from my mistakes or yours?

Sarcasm?

Here's a good example to all those reading these posts why you keep failing to make any headway in the Titor question: you don't know the difference between facts, proof or evidence. I'm only going to lead this horse to water so many times before I decide the horse just isn't thirsty.

I compared your definitions and mine. They were the same. Once again the main definition concerning your position;
Your definition (Black's Law Dictionary )
Evidence: Something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact
My definition (Dictionary.com)
evidence
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

If there IS NO evidence that you will accept, then I'm afraid you're not a skeptic, you're a debunker.
I'm sure ole Webster is just waiting for you to pull him out again and get two more pesky definitions, right?

Yep, I got em ( though actually, I am getting them for your edification, not mine. I already know what they mean. You seem to be having the biggest problem with understanding the proper use of words and I am only trying to help you learn. You're welcome too).
skep·tic [skep-tik]
noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
de·bunk [dih-buhngk]
verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated:
I must be a little of both.

I sure dislike sweeping generalizations such as these. You claim the Titor posts have been modified. Do you have any EVIDENCE of this happening?

Yes, I do have evidence.

Or is this another....assumption that you're making (again)?

Nope, I still don't assume.

It's interesting how it seems that generally sweeping generalizations usually come from the most uninformed of us, don't you agree?

"generally sweeping generalizations" (redundant) [ do you want the Webster's of that term?]
"usually come from the most uninformed of us" ( hmm. a generalization I do believe)
"don't you agree"
I guess, considering the above, I must.

And no, I don't speak for Pamela. I merely defend her when I can.

Post #62
I think this is the first and only time when you have. Your Gallantry knows no bounds.

Now the Penultimate point.

that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Titor was exactly what he said he was.

Post #35

First of all, let's understand there is no such thing as "proof." All we can ask for is evidence. There is a difference.

post #42

My discoveries as they relate to the Titor story are just that, discoveries of fact.

Post #44

In Conviction of a Time Traveler, I state quite clearly that I am not providing "proof." I can only provide evidence.

Post #46

Generalized statements aren't evidence, or proof or facts. I don't discount your assertion, but it requires, in legal terms, "foundation."

Post #46

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,

post #49

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.

Post #49

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.

Post #49

Now that I know that Titor was a real time traveler (supported by evidence leading to only one conclusion),

Post #49

And no, I require no "interpretation" of facts, they speak for themselves. I am merely presenting them for anyone with the curiosity enough to read them.

Post #54

In Conviction of a Time Traveler I present evidence; evidence that is specifically NOT interpretations of assumptions but actual, historical and verifiable facts.

post #58

Facts exist independent of whether you test them or not,

Post #62

As you and the others reading this thread can plainly see, the legal community is firmly behind my, ehem, definitions of Evidence, Proof and Fact.

Post #62

Well, you have been "all over the place" with what you call "the stuff" in your book and I'm sorry to have to tell you, No, the legal community is not firmly behind you in your, ehem, definitions of evidence, proof and fact. (that is a huge assumption and generalization on your part) You still have it wrong.

At post # 35 you entered the debate here with a declarative statement that Titor was in fact a time traveler.

Titor was a real time traveler, the evidence exists and has already been documented. The idea that the Titor story could not be proven nor disproven is no longer the case. It was true in the years immediately following that particular episode in 2000, but actual evidence has come to light (evidence that did not exist yet) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Titor was exactly what he said he was.

In post #38 I asked if you would show this evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is now post #67 and you have evaded every request, replying with nonsense and implying I, and anyone else that wants to know, should read your book.

At this juncture I must tell you; "Mr. Temporal recon, you are beginning to bore me. It is time to put-up or shut-up. Either offer some evidence to support your claim that Titor IS a REAL time traveler, the reason that this debate began in the first place, or Shut The Fuck Up!

(not really, I just though it was fun to say that. If you want to continue, we will, and we can begin to "really" discuss you and your book. Just cuz I won't buy it doesn't mean I didn't check into it.)

Well, Good luck with your book sales. I won't be buying one of course but, you hang in there cupcake, somebody will.

 

[temporal recon]

At this juncture I must tell you; "Mr. Temporal recon, you are beginning to bore me.

10 button presses of the "page down" button to skim your post says otherwise.

Regarding your highlighting of your perceived suffering of the slings and arrows of a lively debate....I'm not sure your point. Can you elaborate?

Do you presume to know me? Do you know my training or education? Have I challenged your authority, education or, training? Don't misunderstand this. I am not angry or defensive. I have nothing to be defensive about. I am responding to your audacity.

No, I do not know you personally yet. Am I mistaken that you are not a person with advanced training in the sciences? Your statements in this thread would suggest this, but if you are indeed obfuscating your training, you're doing a fine job of it.

It is time to put-up or shut-up. Either offer some evidence to support your claim that Titor IS a REAL time traveler, the reason that this debate began in the first place, or Shut The Fuck Up!

I have provided all my evidence 1.5 years ago at Conviction of a Time Traveler If you haven't availed yourself to it, stomping your foot on the ground demanding hard fought research for free won't change the facts I found.
My understanding of the time travel question has indeed matured and I would welcome a (limited) discussion about it.
I'm sorry I have driven you to such frustration to have to resort to such salty language. I understand times are tough and 22.95 is a steep price for proof these days. Maybe if you start behaving yourself your situation might turn around.

 

[Peregrini]

Your funny temporal recon but actually, you do bore me.

Regarding your highlighting of your perceived suffering of the slings and arrows of a lively debate....I'm not sure your point. Can you elaborate?

I would appear you like Shakespeare. (oops, damn. You're gonna think that's an assumption)
I don't mind the slings and arrows. I was just pointing out that, in this debate, you chose to attack "me" not my position which is a not so uncommon practice when one is loosing.

No, I do not know you personally yet. Am I mistaken that you are not a person with advanced training in the sciences? Your statements in this thread would suggest this, but if you are indeed obfuscating your training, you're doing a fine job of it.

I do not need to prove anything to you but if you do want to get some idea as to my "smarts" you are gonna have to "work for it". Read more of my posts. (they are free) There may be something in there. After all, it was you who said;

If someone establishes an opinion without availing himself to all the available evidence, then that person holds a flawed opinion based on incomplete information.
By establishing a preconceived opinion based on less evidence than exists, that person is not qualified to be a juror and will forever be arguing from a position of weakness and ignorance.

Post #62

My understanding of the time travel question has indeed matured and I would welcome a (limited) discussion about it.

I'm sure, and with you it would be "a (limited) discussion"

I'm sorry I have driven you to such frustration to have to resort to such salty language.

I understand times are tough and 22.95 is a steep price for proof these days.

Yea. That's it. You got me. How could I possibly find a spare 22.95. That would be a fair price for proof, but a high and unwarranted price for BS.

Maybe if you start behaving yourself your situation might turn around.

Maybe, if you stopped evading the real issue.

I have provided all my evidence 1.5 years ago at Conviction of a Time Traveler If you haven't availed yourself to it, stomping your foot on the ground demanding hard fought research for free won't change the facts I found.

You keep right on pushing your "book".
You have no intention of presenting anything into this debate that might "resemble" proof or evidence so, I see no reason to continue "having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent".
(Samuel Clemens contributed to this portion.)

 

[temporal recon]

Maybe if you start behaving yourself your situation might turn around.

Maybe, if you stopped evading the real issue.

What is the real issue, Mr. Peregrini?

I find this a good opening to bring others into this discussion. I would hate for everyone to think this was a two person conversation.
I may start a new thread regarding this, but I would truly like to know, considering many believe that John Titor was a Time Traveler and many believe that he wasn't. I wonder (and I would like to hear from the others reading this thread), what was it that convinced you that he was for real?
Conversely, what was it that convinced you that he wasn't a time traveler?
What evidence is sufficient?