Debate John Titor's legitimacy?

[Japrim]

Even if there were a way to prove the laser photo is an authentic bending of a laser beam with gravity, it proves only that someone has technology to bend light. That technology could have existed in secret for decades, thus not actually proving time travel or Titor's legitimacy.

I question why, if someone wanted to prove time travel technology, did they not produce a better photo or do a live public demonstration.

True, it very well could be existing or "future" technology, but the part that bothers me about this is how did technology advance so far in such a short time during a nuclear holocaust?

Indulging in these conversations, from my perspective, is kind of like playing 'make believe', like applying a cartoon scenario to real world context. Ultimately, everyone is basing all this stuff from a face value interpretation of words on a screen and poor grainy photos, witness accounts, etc. That version of the story is complete bullshit, the cartoon.

Hidden within is information relative to an enormously complex set of events and circumstances that has something to do with a group of people from my community, to include myself.

Not only have I talked with people who knew of events and circumstances in the future, but I see Titor has done the same thing, and it is related. At the very least, Titor was working with time travelers. You can call that legitimate if you like.

I actually proved it to Sam and pointed it out to you, Paula. It was subtle, but evidence/proof Titor would know of a future conversation right here at Paranormalis. The conversation got butchered and my comment deleted. Hmmm.

Titor told me who he is, and did so in a way that only a very few people could access or understand. I think I know the purpose of his mission and share his goal. It is a friends and family and community thing.

So I think I am going to stand back and let you all argue about lasers and legitimacy of words on a screen, bullshit cover stories and whatnot.

 

[Num7]

Let's discuss the topic here. No personal drama or personal debates please.

Thanks.

 

[temporal recon]

I agree. The topic is not Einstein's legitimacy. The topic is Titor's legitimacy.

The title of this thread is, as you claim, the question that I dare say the entire Titor fandom has been asking since 2000 : "Is John Titor Real?"

To say that I am disappointed that this question remains a topic of discussion would be an understatement. This question has been asked and answered ad infinitum.
Does this forum's curiosity and creative, objective thinking extend to this question only? Have we not progressed beyond this very boring question into truly wondrous and complex questions (As Japrim rightly states)? Very encouraged to see Japrim's efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff here, unfortunately it appears his efforts fall on deaf ears.

In the course of the discussion on this thread, Einstein (von Paranormalis) presented his theory as fact. His hubris was so egregious that I was forced to comment. In the course of this exploration of his deception, the fact that others came to his defense was also disappointing.
Why defend a known deceiver; a deceiver whose entire premise is based on a false/mistaken understanding of gravity's effect on massless objects?
Is it possible we bet on the wrong horse?

Where is this forum's desire for actual truth? Where is this forum's desire to remain free from the forces that act to thwart this Truth? Instead, those forces are defended, unwittingly, by the well-intentioned.

To further explore the laser pen question with, seemingly, the only individual actually participating in a relevant question:

Where would the light bend?
Answer:
- As it travels through the door of the car window midway between the point source of gravity and its edge of effect.
And why?
two words....rainbow gravity...or rainbow universe

Why do you believe the light would bend at the mid point between the inner event horizon and the outer event horizon, still within the ergo sphere where the effects of the gravity well are avoided or minimized?

As Ever
Temporal Recon

 

[PaulaJedi]

Why do you believe the light would bend at the mid point between the inner event horizon and the outer event horizon, still within the ergo sphere where the effects of the gravity well are avoided or minimized?

I see some assumptions here. Are we assuming that what the individual is holding in the photograph is a microsingularity? In that case, yes, your theory is valid.

"Unlike an optical lens, a gravitational lens bends light to the maximum closest to its center and to a minimum furthest from its center. Consequently, a gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line instead. If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object. If there is any misalignment the observer will see an arc segment instead. "

This would explain the arc, however, how can we ASSUME that the person in the photo is holding a singularity? Where's the evidence?
If it is different technology, then the event horizon is irrelevant.

Does this forum's curiosity and creative, objective thinking extend to this question only?

I see hundreds of topics on this forum. You chose to respond to this one

this forum's desire for

actual truth?

Please supply evidence that everything you say is "truth".

Where is this forum's desire to remain free from the forces that act to thwart this Truth? Instead, those forces are

defended, unwittingly, by the well-intentioned.

If the truth is irrational and ugly, oppositional, and insulting, then it will be rebelled against. Example: Government. We know the truth. In a nutshell, it sux. Why should we embrace it? Like I said before, if a time traveler is a jerk, I don't want anything to do with him. I don't care who he is at that point. And if people WANT to discuss this photograph, it's their right. People come to these forums at different stages of the story. Some people were just introduced to John Titor, so they will ask questions that have been asked before. I see no harm in discussing it with them. I see no need to send out the topic police. Besides, you're talking here, so, it must be a topic of interest to you.

 

[temporal recon]

Are we assuming that what the individual is holding in the photograph is a microsingularity?

No. I've always been under the impression the object the individual is holding is a pen laser.

I see hundreds of topics on this forum. You chose to respond to this one

I see that my comments are not being actually read. I responded to the deception by Einstein who characterized his 'theory' (as uninformed as it is) as fact, which it is not. It is an opinion. This deception required my attention to avert those new to the topic (and the old hands also, as it appears) to believe that Einstein's 'theory' was correct when it was not.

Please supply evidence that everything you say is "truth".

I have made no such claims.

If the truth is irrational and ugly, oppositional, and insulting, then it will be rebelled against. Example: Government. We know the truth. In a nutshell, it sux. Why should we embrace it? Like I said before, if a time traveler is a jerk, I don't want anything to do with him. I don't care who he is at that point. And if people WANT to discuss this photograph, it's their right. People come to these forums at different stages of the story. Some people were just introduced to John Titor, so they will ask questions that have been asked before. I see no harm in discussing it with them. I see no need to send out the topic police. Besides, you're talking here, so, it must be a topic of interest to you.

Missed my point entirely, but I am hopeful there are those watching this thread that do indeed understand exactly to what I am referring.

As Ever
TR