Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="temporal recon" data-source="post: 53337" data-attributes="member: 2826"><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Touch a nerve, did I, Peregrini? Another quote seems unusually apropos here:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900"><em>"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."</em></span></p><p>Rather than quoting your lengthy post, I'll just break it down into bitesize bits.</p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900"> I think you may have missed the distinction between evidence and proof, my friend. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">In Conviction of a Time Traveler, I state quite clearly that I am not providing "proof." I can only provide <em>evidence. </em>As I said before, there is a difference between the two. And, to take your opening statement to its correct and proper conclusion, <em>evidence comes from actual facts, </em>not the other way around as you assert<em>. </em></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Maybe this is why you haven't made much progress in the Titor question?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900"> But this distinction between proof and evidence seems a bit pedestrian of a disagreement, so let's move on from that.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Admittedly, the distinction is a subtle one.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">And you know this exactly <em>how</em>, Mr. Peregrini? As you said, you haven't reviewed the <u>evidence</u> I have compiled and presented. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Another quote that I particularly enjoy seems relevant here as well:</span></p><p><em>"<span style="color: #ff9900">Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."</span></em></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">and similarly:</span></p><p><em><span style="color: #ff9900">"There are more things in heaven and earth, Peregrini,</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #ff9900"> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."</span></em></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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 <u>in 2001</u>. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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 <u>evidence</u> I (and others) discovered <u>hadn't been invented yet.</u> Again, events have transpired and technologies have been developed that provide a great deal of evidence in favor of John's claims.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Holy Grail? Not really. This aspect of the Titor story was a minor chapter. The revelation of <u>one of</u> the 5100 quirks was<u> not the only interesting aspect about the 5100.</u></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">Other than the <u>retail</u> prices you just quoted, that's quite a bit of speculation you're engaging in. Can you cite the <u>facts</u> that support your assertions? </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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? </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">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."</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900">You continue to assert this. This is incorrect. I would recommend anyone interested in learning the <u>current</u> state of our understanding and the evidence that <u>currently</u> exists to allow for the fact that maybe there might be more information out there than we initially thought.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="temporal recon, post: 53337, member: 2826"] [COLOR=#ff9900]Touch a nerve, did I, Peregrini? Another quote seems unusually apropos here:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900][I]"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."[/I][/COLOR] Rather than quoting your lengthy post, I'll just break it down into bitesize bits. [COLOR=#ff9900] I think you may have missed the distinction between evidence and proof, my friend. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]In Conviction of a Time Traveler, I state quite clearly that I am not providing "proof." I can only provide [I]evidence. [/I]As I said before, there is a difference between the two. And, to take your opening statement to its correct and proper conclusion, [I]evidence comes from actual facts, [/I]not the other way around as you assert[I]. [/I][/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]Maybe this is why you haven't made much progress in the Titor question?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900] But this distinction between proof and evidence seems a bit pedestrian of a disagreement, so let's move on from that.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]Admittedly, the distinction is a subtle one.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]And you know this exactly [I]how[/I], Mr. Peregrini? As you said, you haven't reviewed the [U]evidence[/U] I have compiled and presented. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]Another quote that I particularly enjoy seems relevant here as well:[/COLOR] [I]"[COLOR=#ff9900]Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#ff9900]and similarly:[/COLOR] [I][COLOR=#ff9900]"There are more things in heaven and earth, Peregrini,[/COLOR][/I] [I][COLOR=#ff9900] Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#ff9900]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 [U]in 2001[/U]. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]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 [U]evidence[/U] I (and others) discovered [U]hadn't been invented yet.[/U] Again, events have transpired and technologies have been developed that provide a great deal of evidence in favor of John's claims.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]Holy Grail? Not really. This aspect of the Titor story was a minor chapter. The revelation of [U]one of[/U] the 5100 quirks was[U] not the only interesting aspect about the 5100.[/U][/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]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.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]Other than the [U]retail[/U] prices you just quoted, that's quite a bit of speculation you're engaging in. Can you cite the [U]facts[/U] that support your assertions? [/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]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? [/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]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.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]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."[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff9900]You continue to assert this. This is incorrect. I would recommend anyone interested in learning the [U]current[/U] state of our understanding and the evidence that [U]currently[/U] exists to allow for the fact that maybe there might be more information out there than we initially thought.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Who Perpetrated the John Titor Hoax?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top