Debunking Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?

[Peregrini]

If you do not know what the real issue is by this time, you never will and you are a waste of any further time.
Who knows, maybe you will find someone to come to your rescue.

 

[Peregrini]

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?

It is interesting that the E-mail I received containing your reply was "different" than the one posted above. Thought better of it, huh?

 

[temporal recon]

Thought I'd take it easy on you. You cried uncle some posts back and I figured you'd had enough.
Feel free to post my original response if you like.

 

[Peregrini]

Thought I'd take it easy on you. You cried uncle some posts back and I figured you'd had enough.
Feel free to post my original response if you like.

You are ( ha, no mistake that time, though I blame the stupid spellchecker) funny, but you are also no longer of any interest. If it helps or pleases you to say this means I "cried uncle", please, gratify yourself.

 

[temporal recon]

The forums have a spell checker?
hmm, interesting.

 

[Peregrini]

The last feeble twitches from dying insipidity.
No, but "I" have a spellchecker.

 

[temporal recon]

Mr. Peregrini,
I ran across this article today. As I read it, I immediately thought of our little kerfuffle here and thought some might find it interesting. Maybe, after reading this article, you might come to understand how (apart from the Black's Law Dictionary definition) the scientists at CERN, the AP journalists and I draw a distinction between facts, proof and evidence. As you and others might notice, it is a quite common understanding that proof and evidence are in fact different, but related, concepts.

Note: The highlighted portions were added by me merely to draw your attention to the relevant portions.

GENEVA (AP) -- Scientists believe the "God particle" that might explain the underpinnings of the universe is real, and they are about to present their evidence to the world. -They are providing evidence, not, as you'll read, "proof."

Physicists at the world's biggest atom smasher plan to announce Wednesday that they have nearly confirmed the primary plank of a theory that could shape the scientific understanding of all matter. -nearly confirmed, but not quite.
...
Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, say that they have compiled vast amounts of data that show the footprint and shadow of the particle - all but proving it exists, even though it has never actually been glimpsed. - Notice here that the scientists and journalists recognize that "vast amounts of data all but proves the existence of the particle, even though they've never actually "seen" it. It does not prove anything, but the evidence is pointing in only one direction. Exactly how the argument is constructed and supported in Conviction of a Time Traveler.

But two independent teams of physicists are cautious after decades of work and billions of dollars spent. They don't plan to use the word "discovery." They say they will come as close as possible to a "eureka" announcement without uttering a pronouncement as if from the scientific mountaintop.

"I agree that any reasonable outside observer would say, `It looks like a discovery,'" said British theoretical physicist John Ellis, a professor at King's College London who has worked at CERN since the 1970s. "We've discovered something which is consistent with being a Higgs." -This is akin to saying (in a legal context) there is reasonable doubt that the Higgs exists. Notice here, there is still only data showing the likelihood that it exists, even though they've never "seen" it.
...
Rob Roser, who leads the search for the Higgs boson at the Fermilab in Chicago, said: "Particle physicists have a very high standard for what it takes to be a discovery," and he thinks it is a hair's breadth away. Roser compared the results that scientists will announce Wednesday to finding the fossilized imprint of a dinosaur: "You see the footprints and the shadow of the object, but you don't actually see it." - This is similar to the context in which Conviction of a Time Traveler presents its evidence. To recall your admonition of Circumstantial evidence, footprints of a dinosaur are "cirumstantial" that the dinosaur had walked past. The bones, on the other hand, would be "direct" evidence (or proof, if you prefer) that the dinosaur existed. See how that works, Mr. Peregrini?

Fermilab, whose competing atom smasher reported its final results Monday after shutting down last year, said its data doesn't settle the question of the Higgs boson, but it came tantalizingly close.

"It's a real cliffhanger," said Gregorio Bernardi, a physicist at the University of Paris who helped lead one of the main experiments at Fermilab. He cited "strong indications of the production and decay of Higgs bosons" in some of their observations. -These indications are "merely" circumstantial evidence.
...
Officially, CERN is presenting its evidence this week at a physics conference in Australia but plans to accompany the announcement with meetings in Geneva. The two teams, ATLAS and CMS, then plan to publicly unveil more data on the Higgs boson at physics meetings in October and December. Each of the teams involves thousands of people working independently to ensure accuracy. -Notice, their data is considered evidence (cirmstantial). They do not consider their evidence "proof," merely evidence. Notice that all concerned, the scientists, the journalists and even CERN itself only considers the data as evidence, NOT PROOF.

If you and the others reading this thread may recall, a large disagreement ensued when we couldn't agree on the proper definitions of, and differences between, fact, proof and evidence. Black's Law Dictionary wasn't sufficient to show you and possibly others who doubted that there is a proper legal definition for the three words and a proper context in which to use them; the context in which I constructed and supported the argument in Conviction of a Time Traveler.

It is exactly this context in which I provide evidence for time travel and that one particular claimant of being a Time Traveler (JT) was telling the truth. Some might even say that this was the genesis for the title of the book.

Yes, there are those in the world who believe that no further information can be discovered regarding Titor; this is incorrect. Proper analysis and objective reasoning led to some incredible discoveries regarding Titor. I feel extremely happy that I was able to provide this never before seen information. With any luck, maybe my discoveries will convince someone enough to get ready and make the coming interruption in civilization merely a very serious inconvenience.

Always glad to help and, as always, I look forward to your response.
Kind Regards
Temporal Recon
(TR)

 

[Apocalypse]

Rather than read the evisceral diatribe that the trolls have allowed this thread to become, I'll simply ask this...

Does anyone realise that Titor posted about Jesus having returned, and that "he's pissed".? That alone should be enough to prove this travesty of a hoax.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apologies for reviving a dead thread too ... blame Google.

 

[Num7]

Reviving old threads here is not considered something negative at all, contrary to most other forums. Last post was a month ago, you didn't revive it, it wasn't dead yet.