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
John Titor: The Secrets Unveiled Find out the credibility of a Time Traveler
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: 52552" data-attributes="member: 2826"><p>Thank you for clarifying your statement.</p><p> </p><p>Considering the IBM 5100 computer was the <em>first</em> desktop computer (the SCAMP notwithstanding), when John met with his grandfather, why not simply recode or redesign the prototype so as to avoid the Y2K problem altogether? Assuredly, when John described the death and destruction this one slight omission caused on <em>his</em> world line (if we are to believe this statement), wouldn't John's grandfather (identified in COATT) simply avoid the problem then? And <em>if</em> the 5100 were already on the market by the time John arrived, why didn't he simply fix it in the 5110?</p><p> </p><p>When you assert</p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><u>I have some questions. Please have a look:</u></p><p>Exactly <em>what </em>information are you claiming his grandfather passed to his coworkers? </p><p>Did he also explain what would happen in 2000 as a result of this?</p><p>How do you suppose John's Grandfather, PDE, convinced his coworkers that it was better to leave the machine as-is? </p><p>Did PDE explain <em>why</em> it was important to leave the computer as-is? </p><p>Was there any pushback from his colleagues? </p><p>Did PDE explain the ramifications of leaving the Y2K bug in the machine to his colleagues? </p><p>If so, then how could he convince his colleagues that it was better to risk global apocalypse than to fix it then in '75? </p><p>How was John sure that the bug <em>would </em>get fixed? </p><p>What were John's motives for fixing (or making PDE aware, as you claim) of the Y2K bug in the first place? </p><p>Why did these motives change in 98/2000 when he claimed he was there to simply get them ready for what was to come?</p><p>How do you explain the faxes in 1998 describing how Y2K was a disaster on his worldline and appearing as a kind of warning/prediction when he knew the bug had been fixed (or as you claim, the engineers knew the bug) back in 75?</p><p>Speaking of the faxes, were you aware the audio has been modified? </p><p>Surely John knew that PDE would die in the plane crash in the 1980's. So, did John instruct him to tell others (to assure the information didn't die with him)? Again, why not simply <em>fix the bug in '75?</em></p><p>Do you think that it was prudent of John to tell PDE of the Y2K bug (and only PDE) and risk the information could die with him by a "death of probability" <em>before</em> he had a chance to tell is coworkers about the bug? Did John impress upon PDE that it was important to tell his coworkers before "a certain year," the year of PDE's death? How do you think John did this without raising suspicion on PDE's part?</p><p> </p><p>I know, Sam. Many questions. But your theory raises them. I would be very interested in your responses. And, as always, please identify the evidence you have for any of this, or conversely, identify when it is merely speculation.</p><p> </p><p>Thank you</p><p>TR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="temporal recon, post: 52552, member: 2826"] Thank you for clarifying your statement. Considering the IBM 5100 computer was the [I]first[/I] desktop computer (the SCAMP notwithstanding), when John met with his grandfather, why not simply recode or redesign the prototype so as to avoid the Y2K problem altogether? Assuredly, when John described the death and destruction this one slight omission caused on [I]his[/I] world line (if we are to believe this statement), wouldn't John's grandfather (identified in COATT) simply avoid the problem then? And [I]if[/I] the 5100 were already on the market by the time John arrived, why didn't he simply fix it in the 5110? When you assert [U]I have some questions. Please have a look:[/U] Exactly [I]what [/I]information are you claiming his grandfather passed to his coworkers? Did he also explain what would happen in 2000 as a result of this? How do you suppose John's Grandfather, PDE, convinced his coworkers that it was better to leave the machine as-is? Did PDE explain [I]why[/I] it was important to leave the computer as-is? Was there any pushback from his colleagues? Did PDE explain the ramifications of leaving the Y2K bug in the machine to his colleagues? If so, then how could he convince his colleagues that it was better to risk global apocalypse than to fix it then in '75? How was John sure that the bug [I]would [/I]get fixed? What were John's motives for fixing (or making PDE aware, as you claim) of the Y2K bug in the first place? Why did these motives change in 98/2000 when he claimed he was there to simply get them ready for what was to come? How do you explain the faxes in 1998 describing how Y2K was a disaster on his worldline and appearing as a kind of warning/prediction when he knew the bug had been fixed (or as you claim, the engineers knew the bug) back in 75? Speaking of the faxes, were you aware the audio has been modified? Surely John knew that PDE would die in the plane crash in the 1980's. So, did John instruct him to tell others (to assure the information didn't die with him)? Again, why not simply [I]fix the bug in '75?[/I] Do you think that it was prudent of John to tell PDE of the Y2K bug (and only PDE) and risk the information could die with him by a "death of probability" [I]before[/I] he had a chance to tell is coworkers about the bug? Did John impress upon PDE that it was important to tell his coworkers before "a certain year," the year of PDE's death? How do you think John did this without raising suspicion on PDE's part? I know, Sam. Many questions. But your theory raises them. I would be very interested in your responses. And, as always, please identify the evidence you have for any of this, or conversely, identify when it is merely speculation. Thank you TR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor: The Secrets Unveiled Find out the credibility of a Time Traveler
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