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: 53525" data-attributes="member: 2826"><p>Mr. Peregrini,</p><p> 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 <em>are in fact different, but related, concepts.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Note: The highlighted portions were added by me merely to draw your attention to the relevant portions.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> 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.</p><p> </p><p> It is exactly this context in which I provide <em>evidence</em> 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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Always glad to help and, as always, I look forward to your response.</p><p>Kind Regards</p><p>Temporal Recon</p><p>(TR)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="temporal recon, post: 53525, member: 2826"] 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 [I]are in fact different, but related, concepts.[/I] [I]Note: The highlighted portions were added by me merely to draw your attention to the relevant portions.[/I] 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 [I]evidence[/I] 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) [/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