Talk:John Titor/Archive 1

message: Would 211.30.205.144 please stop removing the notices at the top of the article. 220.233.48.200 15:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP REMOVING THE NOTICES

message: NPOV notices because he is made to sound more beleiveble by changing what he said to the closest thing that happened, conradiction notices explained below. I only stating a few that I just notice by having a quick read through, I don't have time to go through this BS propperly to note all of them.
===Iraq war===
In summarized version is says:
Titor stated that WMDs would not be found in Iraq and that another war would be fought under the pretense of removing its nuclear capability.
The detailed part of the article has a part on how he said NUKES not WMD.
===MCD or CJD===
He stated that mad cow disease would arrive and be downplayed in the United States.
vs what he said
Yes, and people are still dying and a great deal of them are passing from CJD. As I said, with my very first few posts almost 6 months ago, I want to emphasize how devastating this will be.
Also, cases of alzheimers in the range of 3-13% are actually CJD.
===Self-hypocritical===
Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.
vs
For starters, the fact that I'm here makes it different. I've also noticed little things like news events that happen at different times, football games won by other teams, things like that.
220.233.48.200 14:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/Contradiction notices

message: Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.
vs
For starters, the fact that I'm here makes it different. I've also noticed little things like news events that happen at different times, football games won by other teams, things like that.
220.233.48.200 14:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-hypocritical

message: An archive of the photos over here, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/john_titor_archive_page_images.html has a photo from 2035 the photo is in the same quaility of digicams from the year 2000, even worse than what we have as of 2005. I would thought they would of had 3D digicams by then! I am referring to the photo with the note:
Titor, "This is a picture taken in the fall of 2035 during my training. It shows my instructor beaming a handheld laser outside the vehicle during operation. The beam is being bent by the gravitational field produced outside the vehicle by the distortion unit. The beam is visible through smoke that is coming from his cigar."
Also the guy talks about by the 2030s they know a lot of things that we take for granted today as healthy is unhealthy, you would of thought they would of known about how bad smoking is by then, and if it got proven to be health you would of thought he would of said so, and don't give the excuse "he doesn't want to change the future that much" because he wouldn't of said all the other BS that he said.
220.233.48.200 13:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of hoax from photos?

message: The link to the archive of the thread has a post, http://timetravelportal.com/viewtopic.php?p=812#812 by "John Titor" (note not timetraveler_0) on 01-27-2001 09:15 PM which links to http://www.p3n.org/pn120100.shtml that page no longer exists. Using a wayback mession the it shows the page first showed up on Apr 11, 2001 which was AFTER Titor's post. You would have thought someone from the future that is talking to people that are interested in time travel would of know that this site will no longer exist a year after his "leaving." 220.233.48.200 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he ever states that the machine is capable of travelling forwards in time. Krackpipe 15:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he does, he says he went back to 1975 then went forward to 2000 and he said he is heading back to 2036. 220.233.48.200 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But maybe he can't travel beyond the point where he started from?  Nightstallion ✉ 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax proof from archive?

message: http://timetravelportal.com/viewtopic.php?p=834#834
The distortion unit reaches its target destination by using very sensitive gravity sensors and atomic clocks. The basic unit of calculation is the second. So yes, in a sense you do “dial in” in a date and the computer system controls the distortion field. At maximum power, the unit I have is capable of traveling about 10 years an hour.
Unfortunately, time travel is not an exact science. There is inherent error and chaos in the computers ability to make accurate calculations. Based on the current technology of the clocks and sensors, distortion units are only accurate to about 60 years or so. So no, in 2036, we are unable to travel back 1000 years due to the error rate in the system. The divergence between the worldline of origin and the target worldline would be too great. If one were to try and travel back that far, history would look nothing like what you would expect.
The unit has mass limits but the 204 is capable of transporting about three people and equipment. I don’t think you would like 2036 very much. 
Problems with this, he claims the limit of how many years he can travel is limited by computers. Computers advance as time goes past, with computer in 2036 he can travel for about 60 year till 2096, get a better computer that can travel further, etc...? What he states is flawed. 220.233.48.200 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he ever states that the machine is capable of travelling forwards in time. Krackpipe 15:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he does, he says he went back to 1975 then went forward to 2000 and he said he is heading back to 2036. 220.233.48.200 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But maybe he can't travel beyond the point where he started from?  Nightstallion ✉ 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Titor's post for how far he can travel

message: I tightened and edited point 7, but I'd really love it if someone more familiar with the Patriot Act could give it a once over and see if what point 7 states is actually true or is just POV and/or hysteria. Thanks. --Neschek 03:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 7 

message: : John stated the IBM 5100 computer had special abilities that were unpublished by IBM. Numerous IBM engineers have come forward to confirm this claim.
could anyone give more specifics on this? certainly such capabilities could no longer be secret after that computer is decades old. 141.211.173.61 00:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All that to the side, Titor's claim that any such thing would be needed to fix the upcoming UNIX date overflow is pure idiocy. Either he doesn't know much about the subject matter, or else he was trying to gull others who don't. — B.Bryant 23:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly he states he was chosen by the government to come from the future, would it be logical to say the government would have given him some classified proof that he is from the future to give to the current government to prove to them what he is saying so, he could do what he has to do in an official way instead of going to some Internet site's forums and doing it there, where it is so easy to fake what ever you want.... (use your brain, and pretend you are the government choosing this wacko and think what would you do...) 220.233.48.200 09:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM 5100 

message: why were points 5 and 7 removed???
im restoring them as i feel that a valid reason for their removal has not been given
Craptree 03:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  points 5 and 7 

message: I'm adding a picture of John's military insignia, as well as the photo depicting the laser bending from the gravity outside his vehicle. I figure they're public domain, as their creator is now in the year 2036 ;) Swhawking 04:39, 4 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics 

message: I don't even understand this title. Is the vehicle called "Are We There Yet?", or is this the poster's comment about the invention? If the former is true, there's a comma (or colon) missing before the title:
* John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle, "Are We There Yet?"
Or better still:
* John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle, Are We There Yet?
If the latter is true, then it's a new sentence, and the quotes and capitalization are wrong:
* John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle. Are we there yet?
OwenX 16:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle "Are We There Yet?" 

message: ...and we keep articles like this one???
YAWN</FONT>
:Pointing out fraud and hoax artists like this and Sollog is serious and encyclopedic. He is at least a noteworthy crackpot.  ALKIVAR™ 03:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, IMO, that's one of the benefits of Wikipedia over print encyclopedias. Someone may very well run across a mention of Titor and want to look him up to find out what is being referred to. A print encyclopedia, even if interested, would never have room for the mass of such references that we can cover here. — B.Bryant 23:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out fraud and hoax artists like this and Sollog is serious and encyclopedic. Unfortunately this article does not do a vey good job of pointing out that he's a fraud. The opening paragraph reads like a defense of the prposition that he really is from the future. And the arcticle's claim that some people are taking a "wait and see" approach rather than dismissing him out right is not true. Anyone who was truly waiting to see if it was true realized it was false the moment his predictions failed to take place. People who believe this nonesense aren't waiting to see anything; they've got their eyes tightly shut.--198.93.113.49 18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about believing or not believing. Consider John Titor as performance art. Certainly the responses he provoked, and the way he engaged his audience to think about various issues, deserves some merit. I've read some of the original threads -- and despite numerous people's attempts to devolve the conversation into a pissing contest, Titor consistently elevated the level of discourse. I don't think he was a time traveller or a fraud. I think he was a clever guy who pulled a damn impressive stunt that warrants acknowledgement. 24.218.67.134 01:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We try to be serious encyclopedia... 

message: Of all the many arguments that Titor's story is a work of fiction, the linguistic argument is least convincing. Titor writes in a current American dialect, but not the (notional) "standard" dialect taught in school. In particular, it looks a lot like stuff you'd read on the internet. There is no significant difference between it and current usage, much less major changes that would take "centuries" — leaving aside the question of whether linguistic changes actually take centuries. Given Titor's backstory of a rural victory in a rural/urban civil war, the language becomes all the more plausible. Presumably the survivors would feel perfectly entitled to write and speak how they wanted to and not according to authority-imposed rules of "correct" grammar.
If anything, the trouble is that Titor's writing is too close to current usage. One would expect at least a few idiosyncratic changes (try reading through informal writing from the 1960s and see if it doesn't feel at least subtly different). But on the other hand, he would presumably have spent a fair bit of time trawling through the internet and may well have tried to fit in based on what he saw.
Myself, I'd stick with the non-falsifiablilty, the lack of predictions of/comments on actual events, the predictions/comments which have not been borne out, the implausibility of the physics and the IBM computer premise, or just the bald fact that the whole thing reads better as allegory than as a factual account. -63.86.210.252 17:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The linguistic argument 

message: The article states "the claimed detour to 2000 to experience the millennium bug is implausible, because not only were there no real effects from it, but he also gave the wrong year (the changeover from 1999 to 2000 was critical, not 2000 to 2001);"
However, if what he wanted to experience was not the changeover itself but the effects (as he claims), then wouldn't 2000 be the proper time to come, since that's when whatever effects there may have been would manifest themselves? Kurt Weber 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly correct. John Titor 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travel to 2000 nonsensical? 

message: Why does Titor's story remind me of the film Twelve Monkeys .
I was actually struck by how similar his story is to the Turner Diaries (without the racism).  --JGGardiner 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Twelve Monkeys]] 

message: Michio Kaku;'s book is not a "novel", but a non-fiction work discussing physics. Classifying it as a "science novel" is more than a bit misleading. Editing. --66.220.97.118 05:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading turn of phrase. 

message: For a better translation (into Chinese, to be exact), I need to know about how do you pronounce the word "Titor". Is it pronounced as /titor/, or /taitor/? -- 218.188.0.150 09:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it "TEE-tore", which is also how I've heard it pronounced in the media. Does anybody know a live person with this name?
* TEE-tore" seems the most obvious, but seeing as it's a name I guess it could be prononuced any way you want. Cryomaniac 23:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Titor" 

message: * He appears to have first posted in November 2000. Did 9/11 slip his mind?
* Don't they have some kind of temporal prime directive in the future? :)
Neurodivergent 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His reasoning for not stating those are here, http://timetravelportal.com/viewtopic.php?p=850#850 and http://timetravelportal.com/viewtopic.php?p=852#852 my reasoning above for why it is a hoax is a lot better, it is beating him at his own game. 220.233.48.200 15:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously a hoax 

message: Earlier on this page someone made note to the fact that if John Titor came in 2000, why didn't he warn us of 9/11. This is because John Titor was an elaborate hoax. I know this because I am John Titor. I posed as him as mere joke, not expecting it to develop into a cult following like it has. I must say sorry to all of you believers out there.
- Jason Emmanuel
Whoever this person is he is a liar.  I know because I am the "real" John Titor, in point of fact I posed as him as a private joke.  This Emmanuel character is an obvious fake.
-  Jacob Edwards
*I am not John Titor. Whoever he was clearly wasn't stupid. Here are two possibilities from the user jmpet at http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/
“1. It was one of the people associated with one of the forums Titor visited. Since he posted on this site more than all others and since this site sells Titor T-Shirts, this gives them a good motive to do it, a better motive not to ever let the cat out of the bag.
2. It was Douglas Adams, author to Hitchiker's Guide. Douglas Adams died on May 11, 2001 which is less than two months after Titor "left". The general themes of time travel and philosophy behind it are very Adamesque; the story is very cleverly written, Titor had to be a writer. He said over 1,000 different things over a four month period and it all makes sense- he had a definite picture of the future.” 
He did suggest a third theory, but asked that it was not made public. Cryomaniac 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real John Titor 

message: Okay, I see that 220.233.48.200 is going a little crazy with the warning tags. Yes, Titor is a hoax, read the opening paragraph. From the outset, the article states that what he says is debated to be a hoax.
"Whether or not John Titor was a hoax is a topic of controversy on web-based paranormal discussion boards."
In your earlier post, you mentioned nothing other than personal views on how Titor is a hoax. I agree with you, but the article is just presenting both sides of the argument. If you want to portray another side of the arguement, add to it. Nothing in the article is glaring POV, and the presence of a hoax is declared from the first paragraph.
Neutrality wise, you need to point out what you think is either POV or factually inaccurate. The point of the tag is to alert people to changes that you think need to be made, not to just post when you don't like a subject. The same is true of your contradiction tag. If you feel there is an issue, place it in one intelligent post on this board. Until you do, I am removing the tags. Avengerx 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Titor#NPOV.2FContradiction_notices And how am I going crazy? All 3 apply, the article contradicts it self and I brought a few examples. The article is not at all NPOV, it is written in the POV that makes it somewhat beleiveble. And as you said it is a hoax, so the hoax notice belongs. I am going to bring this to the attention of a few admins, so it can be decided what should be done. 220.233.48.200 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to bring in people for arbitration, but I'm sure they'll find that the article is more or less fine, sparing a few edits for clarity. Avengerx 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many tags

message: What special features does the IBM 5100 machine have that weren't documented? And who backed this claim up and where can I find more informatiON? I think a few lines in the article about this would be beneficial. --Jazz Remington 14:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who backed it up, you ask? That is an easy answer, the people part of the hoax. 220.233.48.200 15:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM Special Features?

message: Where is the civil war? There are not many hours left to start it.
*You could make any number of arguments about whether the “civil war” has already started, mainly because Titor even said that it wouldn't be obvious before 2008. One such aurgument is that the civil war was started by the events in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and I'm sure someone will come up with another one Cryomaniac 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The civil war? 

message: I'm confused.  The article says that Titor's family lived in a city until after the "conflict" started.  However, the article also says that in 2000/01 he ate only food that was grown by his family.  It seems difficult to reconcile the two.  Did Titor himself?  --JGGardiner 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Titors

message: It's interesting to note that he said telephone service would largely be through the internet in 2036 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/john_titor_archive_page2.html)...Shadow demon 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VoIP

message: The argument that the probability of a discrete time traveler landing in a discrete reality is indeed zero, but if the idea of reality as a PDF is extended, the time traveler himself is a PDF, extending into realities around him. (That is, he exists with varying probabilty in different realities.) Likewise, his traveling activities would result in another PDF, caused by many copies of him landing in many realities of the past/future. This is likely, because of the many instances of the traveler, the probabilty of just one of them traveling in time is also zero ;) All theoretical opinion, of course. --Daniel Hooper 07:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the statistical argument 

message: This article should be deleted, It is rediculous. Please vote on deletion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Titor Mike 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Are articles about hoaxes (as opposed to hoax articles) considered to be rubbish? What about the Piltdown Man article? Should that be deleted? --DudeGalea 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article appears more about the hoax this appears almost like a "biography" about the person who was the hoax (also very one sided, as listed there is a neutral dispute). Mike 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution to a content problem is not to delete the article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If not a delete then a total rewrite and revision. Mike 09:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which does not require an AFD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See what the results are, then see about the rewrite and revision if the decision is to keep then Mike 09:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: The article seems to use the terms "Muslim" and "Arab" interchangably.  The Titor quotes only use the word "Arab".  I don't think that the two are interhchangable today and they may be less so in the future.  Could somebody who knows better than me make this conform to what Titor actually said?  --JGGardiner 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear War

message: Am I the only one who noticed that the symbol in the center of the military insignia of Titors is the symbol of the Bajoran religion from Star Trek? Kittynboi 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Titor a Bajoran?

message: Robert 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think he came back mostly to steal that computer.  Damn goobacks.  --JGGardiner 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD result - keep 

message: :Can we make a archive of the page, it is far too long - Mike Beckham 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?