Any time travelers ?

[Einstein]

Prove it.

lol

Here is the thread...

https://paranormalis.com/threads/is...rmed-time-travelers-on-here-now.13938/page-11

if you read further on down the page you will see I posted my question after he provided the answer.

The_Observer managed to post an answer to a question I hadn't asked yet. It just makes me wonder if he could do it with lottery numbers.

Prove it.

lol

The_Observer provided proof to me. I really do suspect he isn't being truthful in how he did it though. But it was just a subjective proof for my benefit. The sequence of events did play out with effect preceding cause in the thread I referenced to. I suppose it's up to you to decide if you wish to accept that there is a real time traveler in our midst. But then you are the one claiming that the evidence is everywhere. Personally I was beginning to believe that time travel didn't exist at all. Now I stand corrected.

 

[JimmyD]

The_Observer managed to post an answer to a question I hadn't asked yet. It just makes me wonder if he could do it with lottery numbers.

How do we know that is the question, and how do we know it was not conspired to be?

Either he is a traveler, but it does not qualify as proof for any other perspective but the two of you, or you contrived it to create artificial circumstance ( ...that or a lucky guess. ), neither of which actually qualify as proof.

We cannot verify the facts of your exchange. There is no public witness of the entire series of events and circumstances. Thus judgement/discernment is exclusive to you or those privy.

You should really consider your qualifiers. If it is proof, short of a full demonstration with a time machine, it will be an example of verifiable facts out of place on a time line, facts moving backwards because we cannot see things moving forward from our perspective. In order to do that, it requires the use of a medium in which to convey that information. That medium can be almost anything, anything verifiable as existing for the duration of the portion of the time line in question.

 

[Einstein]

The_Observer managed to post an answer to a question I hadn't asked yet. It just makes me wonder if he could do it with lottery numbers.

How do we know that is the question, and how do we know it was not conspired to be?

Either he is a traveler, but it does not qualify as proof for any other perspective but the two of you, or you contrived it to create artificial circumstance ( ...that or a lucky guess. ), neither of which actually qualify as proof.

We cannot verify the facts of your exchange. There is no public witness of the entire series of events and circumstances. Thus judgement/discernment is exclusive to you or those privy.

You should really consider your qualifiers. If it is proof, short of a full demonstration with a time machine, it will be an example of verifiable facts out of place on a time line, facts moving backwards because we cannot see things moving forward from our perspective. In order to do that, it requires the use of a medium in which to convey that information. That medium can be almost anything, anything verifiable as existing for the duration of the portion of the time line in question.

Here is the way I see it. The_Observer has access to real knowledge from the future. I suspect he may be just some employee at a facility where the technology exists. Of course apparently he has some down time where he can goof off on the internet. You can see from the date/time stamp on the posts in question that he provided the answer to my test within one minute of my posting the test. I can assure you that I have had my test question on my mind for the last six months. Lussorio couldn't pass the test. And he went to great lengths to try and weasel his way out of it too. I'm just saying it was like The_Observer just punched in his query to a temporal computer and then immediately posted the answer to a question I didn't ask until around 20 minutes later.

Why don't you give The_Observer the same test I did? That would at least prove to you that he isn't bound by the rules of cause and effect that we are.

 

[JimmyD]

The_Observer managed to post an answer to a question I hadn't asked yet. It just makes me wonder if he could do it with lottery numbers.

How do we know that is the question, and how do we know it was not conspired to be?

Either he is a traveler, but it does not qualify as proof for any other perspective but the two of you, or you contrived it to create artificial circumstance ( ...that or a lucky guess. ), neither of which actually qualify as proof.

We cannot verify the facts of your exchange. There is no public witness of the entire series of events and circumstances. Thus judgement/discernment is exclusive to you or those privy.

You should really consider your qualifiers. If it is proof, short of a full demonstration with a time machine, it will be an example of verifiable facts out of place on a time line, facts moving backwards because we cannot see things moving forward from our perspective. In order to do that, it requires the use of a medium in which to convey that information. That medium can be almost anything, anything verifiable as existing for the duration of the portion of the time line in question.

Here is the way I see it. The_Observer has access to real knowledge from the future. I suspect he may be just some employee at a facility where the technology exists. Of course apparently he has some down time where he can goof off on the internet. You can see from the date/time stamp on the posts in question that he provided the answer to my test within one minute of my posting the test. I can assure you that I have had my test question on my mind for the last six months. Lussorio couldn't pass the test. And he went to great lengths to try and weasel his way out of it too. I'm just saying it was like The_Observer just punched in his query to a temporal computer and then immediately posted the answer to a question I didn't ask until around 20 minutes later.

Why don't you give The_Observer the same test I did? That would at least prove to you that he isn't bound by the rules of cause and effect that we are.

I don't care if Observer is a time traveler or not. I have already seen plenty and need no convincing. And that is beside the point I am trying to make.

Consider this; Whatever form the evidence or proof, it is going to be concerning points in time. It is going to be a verifiable time line and something verifiable being 'out of place' or 'moved', which could be either tangible or intangible.

It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Let me say that again just to drill it in; It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Everyone else cannot see all that is necessary to discern the difference.

You and observer are claiming, not proving anything, and because everyone besides you two are dependent upon taking your word for it that you did not contrive. If it is going to be proven, it will be done so that everyone can verify all pertinent points of truth/circumstance. In other words; That time stamp means squat to everyone but you because it does not adequately explain the impossibility of conspiracy. We are left with the open question of if you planned it that way, and because that would be so simple and easy to do.

 

[Miscellaneous]

How do we know that is the question, and how do we know it was not conspired to be?

Either he is a traveler, but it does not qualify as proof for any other perspective but the two of you, or you contrived it to create artificial circumstance ( ...that or a lucky guess. ), neither of which actually qualify as proof.

We cannot verify the facts of your exchange. There is no public witness of the entire series of events and circumstances. Thus judgement/discernment is exclusive to you or those privy.

You should really consider your qualifiers. If it is proof, short of a full demonstration with a time machine, it will be an example of verifiable facts out of place on a time line, facts moving backwards because we cannot see things moving forward from our perspective. In order to do that, it requires the use of a medium in which to convey that information. That medium can be almost anything, anything verifiable as existing for the duration of the portion of the time line in question.

Here is the way I see it. The_Observer has access to real knowledge from the future. I suspect he may be just some employee at a facility where the technology exists. Of course apparently he has some down time where he can goof off on the internet. You can see from the date/time stamp on the posts in question that he provided the answer to my test within one minute of my posting the test. I can assure you that I have had my test question on my mind for the last six months. Lussorio couldn't pass the test. And he went to great lengths to try and weasel his way out of it too. I'm just saying it was like The_Observer just punched in his query to a temporal computer and then immediately posted the answer to a question I didn't ask until around 20 minutes later.

Why don't you give The_Observer the same test I did? That would at least prove to you that he isn't bound by the rules of cause and effect that we are.

I don't care if Observer is a time traveler or not. I have already seen plenty and need no convincing. And that is beside the point I am trying to make.

Consider this; Whatever form the evidence or proof, it is going to be concerning points in time. It is going to be a verifiable time line and something verifiable being 'out of place' or 'moved', which could be either tangible or intangible.

It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Let me say that again just to drill it in; It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Everyone else cannot see all that is necessary to discern the difference.

You and observer are claiming, not proving anything, and because everyone besides you two are dependent upon taking your word for it that you did not contrive. If it is going to be proven, it will be done so that everyone can verify all pertinent points of truth/circumstance. In other words; That time stamp means squat to everyone but you because it does not adequately explain the impossibility of conspiracy. We are left with the open question of if you planned it that way, and because that would be so simple and easy to do.

Tl;dr: You dont believe The Observer and Einstein. Geez this thread took too long to read.

 

[Mayhem]

To be honest, why would a true traveller come here?

He knows more than that just speculation.

They would just watch and view whats being said.

For tests that some may have, anyone can make up tests so a bit laughable that any one test may be any better
than another can create.

Any one can make a special test lol

 

[TimeFlipper]

If anyone wants to convince me that they are a "genuine" time-traveller it is very simple..
I want to see three headlines from three different newspapers seven days in the future, and if they turn out to be true, then i would shout it from the hill tops that we really do have a "genuine" time-traveller...No ifs or buts, that is my test..end of.. ..

 

[Mayhem]

If anyone wants to convince me that they are a "genuine" time-traveller it is very simple..
I want to see three headlines from three different newspapers seven days in the future, and if they turn out to be true, then i would shout it from the hill tops that we really do have a "genuine" time-traveller...No ifs or buts, that is my test..end of.. ..

Good, Your no one that has to be convinced makes hay or day whether it said or done .

Your test is prob the best but could you get it done for evidence, pics be pretty hard.

 

[Mayhem]

If anyone wants to convince me that they are a "genuine" time-traveller it is very simple..
I want to see three headlines from three different newspapers seven days in the future, and if they turn out to be true, then i would shout it from the hill tops that we really do have a "genuine" time-traveller...No ifs or buts, that is my test..end of.. ..

Then he would be shot dead.

 

[TimeFlipper]

If anyone wants to convince me that they are a "genuine" time-traveller it is very simple..
I want to see three headlines from three different newspapers seven days in the future, and if they turn out to be true, then i would shout it from the hill tops that we really do have a "genuine" time-traveller...No ifs or buts, that is my test..end of.. ..

Good, Your no one that has to be convinced makes hay or day whether it said or done .

Your test is prob the best but could you get it done for evidence, pics be pretty hard.

Mayhem, i dont need pics of newspaper headlines, i expect to be TOLD what those three newspapers headlines are seven days before they come out...I thought you would have been capable of understanding that simple task, but evidently you are not..

Personally i dont care what your opinions are, and i will always use that simple test for proving someone is a real time-traveller, and nobody has proved that they are genuine, therefore in my mind (and probably most other members minds) the wannabe time-travellers we have had on here are all fakes...