Debate John Titor: Real Time Traveler or a Hoaxer?

[Apogee]

Re: John Titor Debate!

Pauli makes an excellent point about Titor acting as a sort of multi-faceted mirror in which anyone's viewpoint can be reflected back at them. I think this is very true. Why else would so many differing people find their agenda's served by his posts?

What bothers me is something that constantly seems to crop up. Like many here, I just can't buy into the 'it doesn't matter whether he's a time traveller or not' argument. Not when a Paranormal Discussion Board has to be turned into a political science forum. For those clearly politically-turned-on individuals who embrace Titor - time traveller or not - as merely a catalyst who reflects their own concerns about the future of the planet, why not legitimise those beliefs and concerns and go discuss them somewhere they might be of benefit? Somewhere that does not involve time-travelling soldiers from the future.

Mud Puppy:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"udpuppy\")</div>

Well, not being one to argue over the cookiness of Adamski, I don't think you can really compare him to Titor. [/b]

Why ever not? What's not to compare?

One man appears with a story (right) out of a science-fiction novel.

He provides no evidence for this except some questionable photographs.

He maintains the consistancy of the story long enough that lots of people believe him and he gains a minor following world-wide.

Adamski spun his story out for years and it was only after Venus was shown to be inhospitable to life did his followers start to really doubt him.
Intrinsic to Titor's hoax is his anonymity. He's simply not around and in these less scientifically credulous days, that's an important move. It keeps him safe from tripping himself up or any meaningful investigation.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

Yes, there is a sucker born every minute....but does that mean that we compare Heaven's Gate to the yet to appear Second Coming of Christ as an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the Christian church for profit, power, etc...?[/b]

A good illustration. Those people were clearly suckered into their suicidal madness by the twisted agenda of one charismatic individual.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

\"Adamski being a crackpot doesn't necessarily imply that Titor is a crackpot.[/b]

No, but it is an excellent precedent for showing how vast amounts of apparently-intelligent people can be taken in by one individual's carefully prepared b/s.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

Is it a story with some holes? Yep. But the bible (Old and New Testament) has holes. The Koran has holes. The first landing of man on the moon has holes.[/b]

Well, I can't comment on the holy books -though I suspect you're right - but as a science teacher I can, and will, comment on your contention that the Moonlanding has 'holes' in it. A better example of lazy, ill-informed, just-plain-wrong nonsense I've never come across. The notion that Apollo 11 was cooked up as a hoax is truly preposterous to anyone with an inkling of physics who looks at the supposed evidence of fakery.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

the history books are also full of so-called \"crackpots\" whose futuristic visions changed our world. Where would we be now without those \"crackpots?[/b]

Agreed. Absolutely. But for every Galileo there is a thousand Adamskis. For every Copernicus there are a thousand David Ickes (the guy now peddling books and videos on the net concerning his theory that the world is being run by a cabal of shape-shifting, twelve-foot-tall lizards who disguise themselves as the likes of the Clintons and the British royal family). And For every Neil Armstrong there are a thousand John Titors.

So if, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath water is to be avoided...must we continue to give credance to the likes of a George Adamski or a David Icke as well? Why favour Titor over either of these two gentlemen for example?

 

[Mudpuppy]

Re: John Titor Debate!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div>

Hi Folks,

Might I suggest a new tack? Instead of debating the (fantastic) possibilities of time travel, why not spend a bit more time on the much more mundane (but barely better understood) area of the human desire to perpetrate the 'hoax.' Not to mention the almost limitless capacity of people through the ages to believe just about anything as long as its sold to them with a degree of plausibility?

[/b]

I meant to comment on this before and forgot. I think this is an excellent idea. If you had been with us a little longer Apogee, you would have seen a whole host of hoaxers come and go. Some of these hoaxers had some of us going for a time. I admit to spending many many hours in private chat and voice modulating with some of them to get to the truth. In the end, when they are exposed, you feel immediate dissapointment, then a little angry (more at yourself for being gullible than at the hoaxer for stringing you along) and unfortunately, sometimes at your fellow forum members. The camp of believers and disbelievers gets very personal.........some wanting almost desparately to know the "truth" and others to keep the status quo, thereby, keeping their sane, logical world in tact. I, myself, am sort of like Mulder. I "want" to believe (But even I wouldn't have believe the ridiculousness of Adamski) and appreciate members like you, who like Scully, present the credible, logical viewpoint that holds me in check. There is room in this forum for both.....no one is forced or coerced into which side of the fence they choose to sit on,.....or switch to, as the case may be at times. The psychology behind why someone would want to hoax is an excellent topic. There has been enormous debate in this forum, especially during the times a hoaxer shows up, concerning why one hoaxes but I don't believe an actual thread has been started. I began an article last fall on hoaxing but never finished it. If you like, I'll go create the topic and we can fill it in as we go. I do think the psychology behind it all is very interesting. I also think it would benefit the members who (and I have fallen into this category at times) can become highly aggitated at being strung along.

Just as an aside since you are new to our forum, at one point this forum welcomed hoaxers with the stipulation that once exposed, they would agree to come clean and be welcomed into the community as a member. But that seemed to invite nutbags from every corner to us and our members invested much time, emotional energy, and sometimes, money or time from families to expose them. It is my belief that it turned the forum into nothing but a witch hunt type of thing where everyone sat around bored waiting for the next idiot to hoax and be caught. The members became quite skilled at catching them, and the hoaxers seemed to become more ignorant of how to hoax. Exposing hoaxers sort of lost steam and the rules were somewhat revamped. We now state very clearly in the rules, that we do not tolerate hoaxers. I, for one, am glad we took this new turn. None of the hoaxers I've ever seen in forums have ever held a candle to the John Titor saga.

And that brings me back to a few of your points. I believe that the reason some of us are still talking about John Titor is because we have been around the hoaxer block (many in this forum alot longer and more experienced than I) and there has never been any other hoaxer to even come close to Titor's story. You could call him the Uber Hoaxer if you want......but hoax or not...........he has never fully been proven a hoax. If you look at the psychology behind why people hoax, you will not find any of those things in any of John's posts.....at least, I have not. But you are welcomed to research them and point them out. I think it would be a great topic for you or anyone else to start.

(Edit: I've just started a new topic thanks to Apogee's great suggestion. Please check it out and post any theories, research, ideas or additions to hoaxing in this thread)
http://www.paranormalnetwork.net/showthrea...34596#post34596


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

Well, not being one to argue over the cookiness of Adamski, I don't think you can really compare him to Titor. [/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div>

Mud Puppy:
Why ever not? What's not to compare?

One man appears with a story (right) out of a science-fiction novel.

He provides no evidence for this except some questionable photographs.

He maintains the consistancy of the story long enough that lots of people believe him and he gains a minor following world-wide.

Adamski spun his story out for years and it was only after Venus was shown to be inhospitable to life did his followers start to really doubt him.
Intrinsic to Titor's hoax is his anonymity. He's simply not around and in these less scientifically credulous days, that's an important move. It keeps him safe from tripping himself up or any meaningful investigation.
[/b]

Well, obviously one can compare them.....what I meant was that I didn't think there was any comparison........meaning I feel Adamski was ridiculous from the onstart and Titor's saga is more believable. But in laying out your argument, it is only your opinion (and others) that his pictures are not credible; not all see that point of view and the pictures are one of the things that make his story credible to some. Also, I don't seem to recall Adamski predicting in a fax to Art Bell about two missing skyscrappers in New York City, Mad Cow disease, CERN discoveries, ect.... These few things, although still debatable, clearly give Titor way more believability than Adamski and his Venusian fantasies. These kinds of "proofs" are what keep fence sitters jumping back and forth between belief and disbelief.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

\"Yes, there is a sucker born every minute....but does that mean that we compare Heaven's Gate to the yet to appear Second Coming of Christ as an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the Christian church for profit, power, etc...? \"[/b]

A good illustration. Those people were clearly suckered into their suicidal madness by the twisted agenda of one charismatic individual.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

\"Adamski being a crackpot doesn't necessarily imply that Titor is a crackpot.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div>

No, but it is an excellent precedent for showing how vast amounts of apparently-intelligent people can be taken in by one individual's carefully prepared b/s.[/b]

Agreed. (Resisting the temptation to see visions of Hilter dancing through my head) That is why some of us continue doing research on Titor. We want the "truth" before we want it to be "real".....although, we tend to sit on the believers side more often than not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

\"Is Titor's saga a story with some holes? Yep. But the bible (Old and New Testament) has holes. The Koran has holes. The first landing of man on the moon has holes.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div>

Well, I can't comment on the holy books -though I suspect you're right - but as a science teacher I can, and will, comment on your contention that the Moonlanding has 'holes' in it. A better example of lazy, ill-informed, just-plain-wrong nonsense I've never come across. The notion that Apollo 11 was cooked up as a hoax is truly preposterous to anyone with an inkling of physics who looks at the supposed evidence of fakery. [/b]

Yes, that was a bad example.....I concur with you. It was 3am when I wrote that.....i must have been delerious. :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

the history books are also full of so-called \"crackpots\" whose futuristic visions changed our world. Where would we be now without those \"crackpots?[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div>

Agreed. Absolutely. But for every Galileo there is a thousand Adamskis. For every Copernicus there are a thousand David Ickes (the guy now peddling books and videos on the net concerning his theory that the world is being run by a cabal of shape-shifting, twelve-foot-tall lizards who disguise themselves as the likes of the Clintons and the British royal family). And For every Neil Armstrong there are a thousand John Titors.

So if, as you say, throwing out the baby with the bath water is to be avoided...must we continue to give credance to the likes of a George Adamski or a David Icke as well? Why favour Titor over either of these two gentlemen for example?[/b]

Yes...your ratios are pretty accurate.......but I look at it sort of like the death penalty/justice system. The system would let 100 killers free (for lack of "proof")before it convicts even ONE innocent man. In similar fashion, some of us, tolerate those of Adamski and Icke's ilk, (what??? you are not yet convinced that the Queen Mum was eating live babies in the basement of Balmoral Castle????) although we are not raising them to the heights of believability, while we entertain the likes of Titor. The very fact that his story centers around time travel.... a subject even theoretical physicists still argue back and forth over.......only holds some of us in an even longer state of limbo.

 

[Apogee]

Re: John Titor Debate!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Mudpuppy\")</div>

I, myself, am sort of like Mulder. I \"want\" to believe (But even I wouldn't have believe the ridiculousness of Adamski)[/b]

Great post Mud Puppy and thanks for bringing me up to date on the evolution of this board.

Believe it or not, there's more to my take on this than simple pragmaticism. I, too, 'want' to believe in so many of the things that are discussed here. As a youth I had a burning passion for the likes of UFO's, The Philadelphia Experiment (in particular) and our native Loch Ness monster. All from the standpoint of a believer. However, as an adult, with more experience in the complexities and frailties of human nature and with much more rigorous critical faculties, I am far more difficult to impress.

Which is why I think the 'ridiculousness' of Adamski is worth pausing over.
To appreciate his impact, you really have to put the guy into his historical context:

Adamski's claims occured at a time before space travel, when the flying saucer phenomenon was new and freshly enigmatic. Atomic energy and its potential for war and peace was new in the social consciousness. The cultural expectations of aliens were very much in the golden-haired, beautiful, silver-suited mold. Venus was still a perfectly mysterious planet. To an open-minded person of fifty years ago, Adamski would have cut a much less ridiculous figure. Hence the widespread support he garnered which no doubt satisfied whatever needs he was seeking to fulfil.

Its easy with hindsight to simply write Adamski off as a crackpot, -as indeed he was - and I take your point about how he never made any Titor-style predictions. But what I'm really getting at is how much is really known today about exactly why a hamburger salesmen would want to claim alien contact when next to nobody up till that point had done so?

There may be a long history of exposing hoaxers on this board and it may be argued that Titor doesn't seem to fit the profile of one in terms of motivation, but surely its a fact to say that when you are dealing with psychological motivations, the ins and outs of people's minds are as complex and myriad as can be imagined. The bottom line is that most hoaxers simply enjoy being at the centre of something, the kind of positive reinforcement derived from feeling special or unique when they are seen as the keepers of a special experience, secret or knowledge: a degree of almost mystical importance in the eyes of the believers. An importance that would make the taunts of nay-sayers tolerable. And I fail to see any reason why the guy behind Titor's mischief is any different. He (or they) just happen to have a strong political agenda and followed the rules of good-hoaxing well.

Caros Allende's techniques were very similar when he made his original, teasing contact with Dr Jessup, also back in the fifties. The Philadelphia Experiment and all its new marvellous forms on the net can be traced easily back to this one individual's mind games. And he was clever with it, too. Telling the good doctor just enough to make him believe there was something to his claims of inside knowledge, mixed with just enough truth and half-truth to make it all seem just possible. A really good hoax, set in motion in this manner can very soon reach a sort of critical mass of interest which then allows it to be almost self-perpetuating.

The Philadelphia Experiment absolutely had me hooked as a kid. As an adult, I see now that there was nothing whatsoever to it but the unverifiable claims of a few questionable individuals. The myth-making capacity of human nature did the rest. But there are many, many believers out there clutching at any straw that might make it still true. A truly successful hoax!

The only thing that thus far sets Titor apart from the usual doobies who claim wild stuff and places him in the Allende league, is that unlike most - he did his homework and knew when to quit.

I for one don't believe, as many here seem to, that Titor never put a foot wrong and that his so-called predictions are working out. He, to my mind, just played a good hand of sprinkling open-to-interpretaion extrapolation from known trends (and I include his nukes in Iraq statement) through his posts. I do, however, believe that like Allende and - indeed like Adamski- he knows that if you get the balance of plausible and fantastic just right, enough people will believe to fulfill your needs (whatever they may be).

I know also that if I were the perpetrator of this Titor business I would be thoroughly enjoying this internet monster I'd created. And that would be motivation enough!

I suppose you're right to adopt the 'no capital punishment to save the one innocent man' tact. But unfortunately, from my point of view, Titor looks like a life sentence for many, many credulous people.

So the sad thing is, I imagine that fifty years from now, when Titor has moved, like Adamski, into the 'ridiculous' file, he will still, just as Adamski still does, have a handful of the faithful to hold his torch.

Kind regards

 

[StarLord]

Re: John Titor Debate!

Apogee, Welcome,

To say that this board was fraught with Hoaxers at one time is putting it mildly.
Most intelligent people cannot understand why folks would come here to waste their time and lie. That is, folks that may not have spent enough time on the undernet.

There you will find almost every lie known to mankind and then some and you get an inkling of why there are people that are so very lonely they would debase themselves to the point of lieing.

Perhaps that's just it, the man or folks that made up titor knew just when to quit. You may be aware as well as I that the longer one prevaricates, the better your memory has to be....

 

[Mudpuppy]

Re: John Titor Debate!

To all those posting in the John Titor Debate section, please post in the manner in which Roth Joint has in the first post in this thread with the JT reference, link, or what you can recall to the best of your memory and then your point following. Without a reference to go by, it's just useless ramblings about Bush and WMD, etc....that will get moved to an appropriate thread or deleted altogether. This thread is one to debate the validity of John Titor's predictions. If you don't include a reference point of some kind, it makes it kind of hard to debate your post.

Thanks,

Mudpuppy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Roth Joint\")</div>

It seems that one of John Titor's strongest \"predictions\" is about to come true: the collapse of Western stability, the coming crisis for Europe... in 2005!

JT: \"...Western stability, which collapses in 2005.\"
\"The West will become very unstable...\"
\"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West...\"[/b]

 

[Apogee]

Re: John Titor Debate!

Q: Are the Olympics still being played in the future?

John Titor: "As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004."


Well, the International Olympic Committee seem strangely unmoved by the predictions of one individual posting on a paranormal website. They don't seem to agree either with his many advocates who interpret any and all bad world news events as fitting in exactly with his doom-laden predictions. Today, they have taken the optimistic step of looking beyond the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and chosen London to host the Olympics in 2012.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_spor...012/default.stm


All the nations who bid for the games were extremely magnanimous in defeat.

This all rather flies in the face of Roth Joint's original post at the top of this thread. I doubt very much indeed if the Olympic committee would have been comfortable playing Britain off against France and all those other EU countries as much as it has in securing their bids for the games if the European Union was anywhere near the verge of collapse.

What are the odds that come 2008, one or more Titor apologists will choose to question whether the Beijing games are actually 'official' or not?

I think now would be a good time to establish a concensus that Titor's predictions were meant literally and not -as is being argued on other boards- figuratively. I read one guys posts suggesting that Titor's civil war has already begun, its just that its a war of words, and that is actually what Titor meant.

I think also its about time we applied some balance and drew attention to more positive and upbeat news events like this one that run counter to the interminable linking of bad events to Titor's 'predictions'.

Kind Regards

 

[Passive_Extremist]

Re: John Titor Debate!

" JT says no more olympics"

They don't seem so confident to me..

Olympic commitee gets insurance

Tuesday, April 27, 2004
LONDON ? For the first time, the IOC has taken out cancellation insurance on the Olympics: a $170 million policy to cover the risk of the Athens Games being called off because of war, terrorism, earthquakes or flooding.

It's the first time the International Olympic Committee has insured any Olympics against cancellation.

The policy covers a "whole range of issues such as terrorism, earthquake, flooding, landslides, things like that," Rogge said by phone from Lausanne, Switzerland.

Rogge said the IOC would also negotiate individual cancellation policies for future Olympics, including the 2006 Winter Games in Turin, Italy, and 2008 Summer Games in Beijing.


Also..

Turin Olympic organizer to resign
TURIN, Italy -- Valentino Castellani, chief organizer of the Turin 2006 Winter Olympics, says that he will resign later this month, in the midst of an internal power struggle for control of the Games.

"That's it. It's not worth trying to work this way anymore," reacted Castellani. "You can't occupy a position of responsibility like mine and not have the faith and support of all the people who have a responsibility for organizing the Olympics."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ SPORT/11/04/italy .olympics/ index.html

 

[Apogee]

Re: John Titor Debate!

JT: "You should probably know that this time is not remembered for its
selflessness, charity or ability to work together."


John really can't have done his history homework very well or how could he dismiss so completely so many recent examples that make a nonsense of this statement like the massive Live8 events of the past week or the unprecedented Tsunami Relief fund?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live8


There can be little doubt that Live 8, like its predecessor Live Aid in 1985, represents (despite the criticisms levelled at it arising from the usual - no matter what year you come from - frailties of human nature ) a huge, international altruism aimed at righting the injustices of the modern world.

It sounds to me as if Mr Titor doesn't actually understand the meaning of the words 'charity' or 'selflessness'. And if nothing else, Live 8, (ultimately a political movement) vast and international in its scale, proves beyond doubt that an ' ability to work together' is present and correct in the generation he seems to despise so much.

The G8 meeting appears to have the leaders of the most powerful countries in the world edging towards agreement on aid for Africa and wiping out third world debt in those countries stable enough for that to matter.

And what of the Worldwide Tsunami Relief fund? So much money was given worldwide that in the end charity organisations had to signal an end to donations as money was no longer in itself a problem.

I mean, its possible I suppose that all records of these things were wiped out in the Nuclear War. But more likely I think that the Titor hoaxer just spends too much time confining his own activism to tapping on the internet and not enough marching, donating to charities or attending protests and concerts for political justice.

 

[Roth Joint]

Re: John Titor Debate!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Apogee\")</div><div class='quotemain'>Who cares about Africa?
</span>
By <a href=\'mailto:[email protected]\'><span style=\'color:#0000ff\'>DAN CHAPMAN</a>
Cox News Service
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

-- "What happened to the more than $450 billion from rich-country donors that went to Africa over the last several decades?" asked Ian Vasquez, an economic-development expert with the Cato Institute in Washington. "Africa is the least economically free region in the world, and that's the main reason why it is also the poorest region in the world."

-- The West, though, wasn't done with Africa. Oil and minerals proved too valuable to be left in the hands of Africans. Cold War exigencies also forced the United States to counter Soviet influence continentwide.

-- "The U.S. has played an unproductive role in Africa, as a matter of policy, since the dawn of independence," said Bill Fletcher Jr., president of TransAfrica Forum, a nonprofit education and advocacy group in Washington. "We need to clean up the mess we've created."

-- "This is not about charity or graciousness," said Stith, who directs the African Presidential Archives and Research Center at Boston University. "This is the world's payback to Africa."

-- Bush prefers trade instead of aid and the power of the marketplace over the heft of the government's pocketbook when helping developing countries. The United States ran a $32.3 billion trade deficit with Africa last year due largely to American consumers' insatiable appetite for oil.

-- Europeans bought nearly $40 billion worth of African oil, diamonds and coffee last year, yet exported almost as much to the continent. In all, Africa accounts for 2 percent of the merchandise imported into the United States and Europe, according to the World Bank.

 

[Apogee]

Re: John Titor Debate!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Roth Joint\")</div>

There's no doubt selflessness, charity and the ability to work together are not very high on the list of priorities nowadays. [/b]

Well, that is entirely debatable Roth Joint.

Its reasonable enough to harbour suspicions on the motivatons of politicians and their agendas I suppose...but there's more sanctity and hope in a small child's efforts to collect tin cans for a famine relief drive than all the compromised half-assed efforts of leaders round a summit table. Quite how you can dismiss every day, common charity work or the Live8 movement or the likes of Oxfam, Save The Children or any number of other organisations commited for so long to making an impact on the Africa problem, as being of short duration and quickly forgotten is beyond me. But even if we were to assume that its true for everyone ( when was the last time you marched or donated or took a stand politically?) this lack of altruism you seem to believe in would still not change the following fundamental fact:

Human beings have evolved emotionally very little since the days of our Neanderthal cousins. I find it very difficult to believe that much will change on this score between now and 2036 no matter how much war and social upheaval takes place.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the Titor posts are the genuine article, and he has developed his critical, condescending attitude to our world from the viewpoint of a future society pieced together from the remnants of the old, the people in it will be much the same in terms of their human failings as those that exist today. Whats more, I would say that a world that has a common expression along the lines of - ' a safe place is anywhere that a hungry person can't walk in a day' is about as far from the utopian ideal as can be imagined - regardless of whether Titor blames us for bringing those circumstances about.

Titor's future world hasn't reached the enlightened heights of social perfection that in its selflessness, charity and ability to work together people don't need politicians or an army. Any society they've developed will be subject to the same corruption, fear, deceit and b/s that we must struggle against today.

As 'Mr Dark' on another board put it:

"...people in the year 2036 might well look back on the first years of the century as being a "golden age" of freedom and plenty, or a barbaric dystopia of ignorance and hypocrisy."


or, as would be more accurate, a society with both positive and negative qualities, like most other societies in human history.


People are people no matter what decade they come from. We can only struggle to improve the justice built into our governments. The politicians of 2036 will be no different to the politicians of today.

All the Titor Hoaxer has succeeded in doing with these cynical statements is illustrating the fact that the more things change - the more they stay the same.

By passing judgement on our time, he has merely highlighted the hypocrisies and shortcomings of this fictional future of his. A future where people are no more and no less mercenary, exploitative and deceitful than they are today...

...certainly something worth pondering as we sip thoughtfully from our John Titor mugs and recline in our John Titor T-shirts..