Talk:John Titor/Archive 2

message: John Titor is much more well substantiated than Jesus
:Maybe.  But he's got a smaller fan club.  --JGGardiner 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also of the opinion that Titor is BS, but this article makes for a fascinating read.  We don't give just anyone who claims they are from the future their own wiki page... only the ones who are able to capture a lot of attention by doing it. :D NemoMac 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: By civil war, did he say that it was a bloody civil war, or a political war? --Some random IP
:Actually the civil war, whatever its nature, begins in 2005.  Some of the Titor posts used the date 2004 for the start of the civil war but Titor said that was the fault of typing errors.  He clarifies that it began in 2005.  He did however say that there were civil disturbances around the time of the 2004 US elections.  It looks like our article is in error on the point now.  --JGGardiner 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, a civil war wether political or war bound should be atleast dividing the country in feuds of violence and a division of the country. A division in political viewpoints has always been in our history of a country but a division of something much like "I don't wish to be American, I'll leave" is not the current mentalitly of our nation as of now. Currently it is the though of either being republican or democrat, not something like the American Civil War where it was Southern or Northern. Ergo, his claims of a civil war are off based and his perdictions stand as being wrong wether or not they are a political or war-bound civil war.--Joshic Shin 07:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil War, 2004

message: Titor HAS been traced back through verifiable facts, to Larry and Brandon Haber of Celebration Florida. Do a little research to clearly follow the trail. The person in the bent laser picture has been identified. As has the graphic arts studio (the big multi-media studio at Haber's office) where the schematics were made. Larry is also the manager of the John Titor Foundation, and has copyright on all of "Titor"'s posts. 
-July 20, 2006
:: If Titor is real, then Haber cannot have copyright on the posts.  For Haber to claim copyright over the posts, he would have to prove that he had a hand in writing them, and therefore debunk the Titor story.  Titor does not have a legal personality in this Time to claim copyright. Maccess 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now THATS a legal dilemma. Sounds like a case for the supreme court.--Threedots dead 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titor identity 

message: I tried to make it more distinct, but there is only so far you can go. I don't see how this is important... there are articles here about Jesus, Buddha, and Muhamed... why not John Titor? No one can clearly make the distinction they are asking for... if we could we would not be editing some silly article about a "man" named John Titor. Roguenine2000 23 January 2006
:The difference is that more people believe in Jesus than in John Titor, so John Titor is less important, less notable. Using the number of articles in major news media covering a phenonemon as a rough guideline for article size, and assuming the article on Jesus is 24 pages, than the size of John Titor should be zero. Nada. Even comparing to the flying spaghetti monster, John Titor should have zero. You can believe in as many fictional people you want, as much as you want, but unless your name is Madonna or similar, that fact is not notable. -- Egil 05:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because people don't believe something doesn't make it non-notable Cryomaniac 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Egil's point is not that it's non-notable because it's not a wide reaching phenonemon. [sic] --64.236.128.14 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Egil would be willing to point out another supposed time-traveller who is more well known or notable?  Shouldn't John Titor's notability be compared to other supposed time-travellers and not religious figures? -- GIR 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: i tried...

message: I agree that it is inane to have articles about supposed beings that "existed" (Jesus, Buddha, the flying spagetti monster, whatever), and not a purported time traveller.  How do we know Jesus was able to do these things he's purported to do?  We don't, but by faith and "account" in the Bible, we are to believe he was able to do all of these wonderful things.  It's saddening that for a world that is trying to disassociate its sciences from its religions, we still come across this impasse (sp?) of sorts.  If you can believe that a man can die on a cross, come back to life, and be able to turn water to wine, why not believe that a man (who some of his claims make sense) really existed (even though his origins seems more sci-fi than real life).  In any case, John, if you're reading this (and if you exist) in a few years (if you've prevented to holocaust we "face"), go back in time and find out a way other than the internet to solidify your existence.  Hell, sign the declaration of independence, and if it lies there on that page, then we know of your existence.  
Brian Kovacs, Art Education, Penn State University
:Truth alone does not make a Wikipedia article.  There is a real Brian Kovacs but no page on him.  --JGGardiner 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But could there be? --64.236.128.14 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  You are free to create one unless you are Brian (no-autobiography allowed).  But I think that you will find that WP has a lot of Devil's Advocates who would have it up for deletion quickly as a so-called "vanity article" (unless Brian has done something notable that I'm not aware of).  If you are actually interested, see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and more importantly, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
While the "flying spaghetti monster" may no longer exist (Avias pastanii having gone extinct in the Triasic Era), I must point out that, from what I hear, Switzerland is due to have another bumper crop with their annual spaghetti harvest. :) (now THAT'S obscure!) Wilybadger 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Brave New World 

message: Okay, well, stick this in your pipe;  Just because something is said doesn't mean it's true.  Thanks for the update Tom Brokaw. But, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point WAS that if people can believe in all of these religious icons having existed, why not believe in Titor's story.  I was neither proving or disproving his existence, just that it's idiotic to believe that one being exists and not the other, whether they have an article in wikipedia or not.  But there are books out there about John Titor and there's this other book (I forget the name of it, but it begins with a "B").  In any case, if you were validating what I was saying, thanks.  If not, then take in al the wonderful sarcasm in the in the first two sentences.  Oh, and by the way, there should be an article about me.
Brian Kovacs
:Well I was trying to be light-hearted, not sarcastic, sorry.  But my point was that there are several criteria that WP uses to decide if something should be here.  One important one is verifiability.  Because of that, this page is not about John Titor the man (or boy) but rather the Titor story.  While John Titor, the person, may be real, it is completely unverifiable except for this story.  Another is notability.  I personally don’t believe in Jesus (although I believe there was a real Jesus) and I agree with you that it is no worse to believe in Titor.  However, Jesus is not on WP because he was the son of God but because he has had importance to humans and human society on a far greater scale, deserved or not.  True or not.  I personally think Benny Hinn is the most ridiculous person on the planet just now but some people seem to believe him.  I do agree with you that human societies and Wikipedia in particular have to much deference for religion and that religious topics may be included here where comparable non-regions beliefs are not.  However, the scope of belief in religions is quite obvious.  The problem with Titor(ism) is that it has not been shown to be a similarly widespread phenomenon.  I’ve not seen proof that 1000 people believe him, let alone anything approaching even a minor religion.  And of those that do, have any taken one action, even the slightest, to change their lives because of his “predictions”?  Perhaps, but it is not presently verifiable.  Has anyone moved from the city because of the war?  Or left America perhaps?  Has anyone even sold their tickets to the upcoming Olympics?  I’ve never even seen one person attest that they believe him -- and attach their real name to the statement.  As far as the book, I only know of the one mentioned on the page.  It is just a compilation of the Titor internet postings apparently.  Of course some people believe in him but people also believe urban legends and conspiracy theories which do not all have to be enumerated on Wikipedia.  --JGGardiner
::A lot of conspiracy theories do have pages here though Cryomaniac 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so does Titor.  I think that the page should exist.  --JGGardiner 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, there should be... 

message: Titor's writings are much less vague than those of nostradamus, and give specific years for events, which nostradamus rarely did, so, in my opinion it is harse to compare Titor directly to nostradamus, I will leave a reference to him though. Cryomaniac 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to nostradamus

message: There are admittedly some crazy people posting in this thread, but it appears that sane and rational people are showing John Titor may have been a character invented to promote the site.
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=18775&page=8&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all
To paraphrase this position,
Darby:
"Though Art Bell would have you believe that when [A David Anderson who is NOT the David Anderson who is pseudo-famous and has a Ph. D.] at  "disappeared" he may have gone bye-bye in a time machine - he didn't.
He's running summer youth camps in Slovakia, Montenegro and Romania out of an apartment in Rochester, NY.
Honest!
There was no "work" done by him and there was no Time Travel Research Association. It was a P.O. Box in Smithtown, NY. He was running the operation from his home in Smithtown until the divorce came along and he had to move out."
:I must admit I only looked at the first few entries there.  It seems that those people have a theory about how the Titor story was constructed.  If they want to theorize, I have no problem with that.  However, the problem with speculation works both ways.  One cannot speculate what Titor meant, nor can one speculate how the events happened.  You can do that anywhere else but not on Wikipedia.  Discussions of Titor are fine if you want to do that.  But WP is not a discussion forum.  It is an encyclopedia (of sorts).  It's not that it's wrong.  This just isn't the place for it.  --JGGardiner 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also various theroies on that site, such as the idea that Douglas Adams was John Titor, I think that the general concensus on that site (I post there occasionally, as Cryolemon) is that it was someone from either that site, or one of the others that Titor posted on. The article should perhaps have a section discussing the different theories of the identity of Titor, but i'm not really sure how to word it. Maybe I'll try later Cryomaniac 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We know who played John Titor?

message: I see what you mean; however, this still seems worth talking about, watching and investigating for the sake of the future of the article. The reason for this would be that if better evidence appears, it may be worth documenting who may have played John Titor (at least, if there is going to be an article on JT at all). Right?
:I agree.  WP responds to the outside world.  So things can be included if they become more important or obvious.  Personally I think that we sit on the same general side of the Titor debate but I've been against inclusion of Titorist(?) speculation and we have to be fair.  I wouldn't include that in the article but if you think that it should be in the links, maybe you should see what people think here.  --JGGardiner 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I'm going to try and write a section about who Titor was, if it's no good feel free to edit or remove it. I've put this here so people don't assume it's spam or whatever. Cryomaniac 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best of luck.  I'm always happy to see any good faith work.  --JGGardiner 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just so you know (Who was John Titor?)

message: On friday Feb 17th (and replayed again on the 20th) the paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM interviewed an attorney (I forget the name) who claimed to represent titor's mother. There were a few interesting things said. Does anyone else who listened and took notes think it's something that should be mentioned? --Shinto 06:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't hear it.  I don't think the fact that it happened is all that notable by itself because somebody already claimed to be Titor's mother to publish the book.  But perhaps if s/he said something new?  --JGGardiner 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the story to know if there was anything new. The lawyer spoke through the mother who didn't want to be heard *cough* but she talked mostly about her reactions when he first came to see her, and said they moved to Nebraska. --Shinto 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would look at the "Lawyer" and "Mother" as totally different issues.  We should only focus on what Titor said that was recorded in transcripts.  I could claim be to the lawyer of any of the twelve apostles, Leonardo da Vinci, or any other non-living, or disappeared person.  Titor isn't around to confirm that the guy is really his Lawyer or that the lady is really his mother.Maccess 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast to Coast AM interview of the Titor family attorney 

message: I think as long as it is reported that Titor is a self proclaimed time traveler, and all that he said is documented, and stated as works from Titor himself, I don't see the problem.  I believe in John Titor, and I believe in Jesus Christ, and I don't see the problem on /reporting/ on what Titor has said and done.  I am disappointed about the article being trimmed down and obfuscated in the way it has been, and I think it should be reverted to the older version, and revised if anything seems a bit touchy.  Just because someone makes crazy claims that may be false, doesn't mean they should be erased from history.  It is our job as Wikipedians to report facts on neutral grounds and let the reader decide.  It is a fact that John Titor has claimed to be a time traveler, and there is no problem in reporting that.  It is unprovable that John Titor actually traveled time, and that there is a video online showing his departure, but it doesn't mean that we cannot report that there are rumors of a video of him departing.
: Titor is a socio-cultural phenomenom. I would go so far to say that his original posts have take a life of its own.  If one argues that Jesus did not really exist, one takes the teachings of "Jesus" at a separate level. There is independent value in what he said, in terms of what is now called "Christian morality." Titor is not Christ, but the relevance of what he has said to today's situation is worth noting.  The time travel aspect may be taken separately.  Titor could very well be the creation of an individual, or a committee of futurologists, not a time traveller, but there is value in what he has said, and, I believe that, in itself is worth documenting, if only for the socio-cultural aspect of it all.  Maccess 12:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "all that he said is documented," his predictions have already proven false, like a US Civil War in 2005.Rlevse 10:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a strong Titor advocate 

message: I'd really like to see things work out a little more smoothly with this article.  There has been a lot of polarized A or B (old or new) talk around here but I'd like to actually move on, to start from scratch with a basic outline of what this article should look like.  So:
INTRO
TITOR NARRATIVE
LINKS
That much goes without saying.  This outline is a stub.  You can help me out by expanding it.
Cryo, where would you like to see the part about the "real" Titor?  Should we have a section on Titorism and a section on Scepitcs, which might include that.  Or maybe stand-alone.  Or maybe if anybody has concerns, I think we should talk about that also.  I hope that we can get some good collaborative work done here.  Thanks for indulging me.  --JGGardiner 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamas only has one M. Lupine Proletariat 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Composition

message: in the form in which it existed earlier today, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Period. To the degree this phenonemon needs mention in WP, it should be according to the WP guidelines. -- Egil 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were not any fact vs. fiction problems in the part I posted yesterday, which was the "Criticisms" section. You should like the criticism section. Wiwaxia 12:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but there is. It seems the criticism raised against Titor is not for real, and at least certainly not notable. If there is any notable criticism against Titor, then that will be reflected in the notable media, and you will have references to show it. As it stands, the criticism seems like it may have happened on some obscure web site, if that. In which case it is not notable, and should not be in WP. I could not find anything in the material you submitted that was suitable for WP. Sorry. -- Egil 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eirst you claimed the problem was that it does not distinguish between fact and fiction, now you're claiming the problem is notability. Pick one and stick with it. Also, a lot of the criticism sections in Wikipedia articles are gathered from the arguments people will typically make on the Net. Look at Nolan Chart for instance. Wiwaxia 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction 

message: We've just had another large edit (by Truthhere) that will no doubt be reverted by somebody else.  And in the end it all gets us nowhere.  If anybody is interested in discussing the composition or their preferred composition of this article, please give some feedback in the "Article Composition" section that I started above.  I'd like to see some collaboration that might resolve some of the concerns behind these mass edits.  --JGGardiner 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Titor's not the only one who can predict the future.  Seriously though, some collaboration would be nice if anybody wants to see any positive change.  --JGGardiner 06:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that typing in all uppercase letters is generally considered shouting, which is incivil. Please refer to the article Netiquette for further information. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure what you're referring to Dano.  If you mean the material that was discussed above, it was restored weeks before your edit and has only been expanded since then.  --JGGardiner 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass Edits

message: I've reverted the article to the state of April 2. All content added after this point seems to have the same problem as before. People may ramble and create controversies and theories about John Titor as much as they like, and the Internet is full of places where they can publish it. Material needs to fullfil a certain minimum standard of WP:notability to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia:
:A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.
Material that does not fullfil this criteria, cannot stay in the Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia here, and we have to be careful about the content we add This is official wikipedia policy, see also WP:NOT.
So for any chapter to be added to this article, it has to be shown, by use of referrences, that the content is not original thought, and that the material dicsussed is indeed notable enough, for instance by being mentioned in major news media, in scientific studies et al. 
See also the rest of the dicussions above. -- Egil 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  about the predictions summary, should we make specific links to what Titor actually said with a timestamp.  The archive in abovetopsecret.com has timestamps but we can only link to each one of the 19 pages, not to the individual quotes. Maccess 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just felt a summary was better than having nothing at all and also better than having pre-April 2 content. I don't see much point in timestamping it, since it makes little difference in what order the guy predicted things. Keep it simple, conspiracy free, layman's terms about what is supposed to happen, and let viewers decide whether it interests them enough to look it up using the external links. Siraphec 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the predictions summary is a good idea.  I like the page now.  I've contributed to the earlier version, but I agree with some of the points above that it was becoming a forum with speculative elements.  Timestamps are important as part of the documentation of Titor phenomenon, but not in the summary. I'm thinking of putting the whole Titor transcript in Wikisource so we don't have to link to an external site for citations.  The transcript is in the public domain. Maccess 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: "03:19, 24 June 2006 Michaelbeckham (its gone back to a terrible article again. hard to see whats real and not)" The only additions have been verbatim from the actual John Titor archives.  The entries are listed under Predictions, how can it be miscontrued as "hard to see what's real or not?"  It's a prediction and it's a fact that a guy calling himself "John Titor" posted these on the Internet.  What is unclear about that?58.69.210.219 06:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a messy article with fact and ficion merged, main problem is the "predicitions" area. It is just pathetic that this article keeps being made less and less like a Encyclopedia article and more into fan ficiton even after people try and fix it. - Mike Beckham 07:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   The predictions are labelled:  Predictions Summary.  They are quoted verbatim from Titor's statements.  What's not objective about that?  I've even removed some items there that others (and even myself) have posted that I did not find in the transcripts each time I reviewed them. 
It's a fact that someone calling himself John Titor/a hoaxer/a conspiracy theorist/etc. made those statements, they are documented in the John Titor transcripts.  
There is no claim made that these are what will happen, or that these describe the future as it will happen, since the entry is about the Titor phenomenom, I don't see the issue with documenting what he said, as long as it can be found in the transcripts. Maccess 07:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: John Titor did not claim to have a ship. He travelled via a machine that was placed into a car. Also, Jonh Titor talks about "worldlines" which are different than "timelines." In his "theory" everytime you go "back in time" you are entering a new "Worldline." The difference between a "Worldline" and "Timeline" is that a "timeline" is contained within a "Worldline" and actual "Time" can not be changed.  Everytime John would go "back in time" he would be going backwards, but would also be visiting very different "world" in which if he left, he could not revisit.
John was able to get back to his own "time" or "Worldline" by going backwards in "our worldline" to the point of before he visited "us." Once he goes back, he would be in a time that would unfold almost exactly similar to his own "worldline" but he explained that it would not actually be his real home, as there is always a slight variance.
Yes, it's confusing. I'm not sure what the deal with the constant editing of this paticular wiki has been and the battle to re-edit the page constantly, but I find this article is missing a large sum of accurate information.
I've only edited the "ship" and "timeline" parts, as they are EXTREMELY incorrect to "his" "biography" in the wiki. I've left a great deal untouched as I don't want to get in the middle of this constant edit battle. =P
IceSage 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected a short bit. "Ship" and "timeline" 

message: I had created this section as a summary, people have done nothing but add to it until it now occupies the majority of the page. It now is certainly not a "summary" as such, and is becoming longwinded with uninteresting and very minor points being added. I realise that if you trawl though Titor's posts you will come up with a million and one details which he mentions, but this section is a summary of those, with only the most meaningful and notable of these details being mentioned.
Thus I am taking it upon myself to trim and delete large parts of this section every time I feel it gets too large and uninteresting. If you find that a point you added has been removed then don't bother adding it again since it would already have been judged as unimportant. If you have a problem or utterly must have something there, please post it here and it will be considered. Regards Siraphec 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but could you please cut it down so that it indeed becomes a summary. 5 to 10 lines would be more than enough - this list of predictions is only relevant in Wikipedia to the degree that the phenomenon is notable in the real world, and to date I have not found any evidence that it is. The fact that there, in the real world, exists some individuals who keeps adding all sorts of non-notable information to this article does not make the subject more notable - to the contrary, it is evidence that all of this is Wikipedia:trolling.  -- Egil 11:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the support. That's the other thing - the entire article is based around these predictions. Unless we could get the pictures and diagrams of the time machine on here (anyone?) that's all there is to this page. Let's get it on the front page this time. Siraphec 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the pictures were actually removed because they had no copyright info.  But the cutaway photo still exists.  It was removed by 70.68.228.208 on May 4, which was the wholesale revert to the original disputed version.  --JGGardiner 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Predictions Summary 

message: I feel the page could do with this, seeing as they are one of the main points of interest for theory-buffs (ie not only did this guy claim to time-travel, but he also provided pictures of the kit he used). Regardless of whether they are forged or not, they belong on wikipedia as a high point of the article, and they fit the article rules. Please can people find out how we can get such images on wikipedia, then submit the image names here for arrangement. I'm not too clued in about how such forum-submitted pictures are copyrighted.
Many thanks Siraphec 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Section 

message: The opening paragraph of the article clearly needs some editing; it's somewhat nonsensical, and the punctuation's terrible. I would fix it myself, but I'm not quite sure what it's trying to say. I'm thrown off by the part where it says "but seemingly his falsifiable, predictions about events in the near future and giving an account of his supposed native time period." - Tacubus 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph Clean-up 

message: John Titor's unofficial slogan, "The Man Whose Past is the Future", has been changed to "The Man Whose Past was the Future" for gramatical reasons.
Quite a bit of editing during the last month, but of particular interest to me were these statements:
:The 'John Titor' persona has since been traced back to a prominent attorney in Celebration Florida named Larry Haber, who is the founder of "The John Titor Foundation".
This, along with various other edits (12 in all), was contributed by 'Metr0man' over the course of just two days in July.  Maybe it's true, I don't know... if so, it should be cited.  But in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe it belongs in there right now.
Secondly, the claim that...
:Recently it has been suspected that John Titor has resurfaced posing as a Tampa, FL attorney named "Dave." It is rumored that he is secretly communicating, with whom it is unknown, via his MySpace codename "Carlito 2." This, of course, calls into question the importance of law in the future and the need to hide within the Florida legal field.
is stunningly oblique, and probably a vandal.  Siraphec attached a [citation needed] so I'm not the first to have noticed it, but I've removed it forthwith. — VoxLuna (talk)  13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of Intro Reverted 

message: Surely if the images are all from the future, then they are public domain (or at least they haven't entered copyright protection yet), so we can reproduce full sized versions of them? Richard W.M. Jones 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Texas is Hispanized.
What exactly is this supposed to mean?  I understand the general sense, "made Hispanic", but it's rather vague here.  Does this mean Hispanics became the majority population in Texas?  Texas was given back to Spain?  Texas became its own predominatly Hispanic country?  Maybe this is vague because it was vague when Titor said it, but if that is the case it should be quoted, e.g. Texas is "Hispanized" Pimlottc 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanized? 

message: in the section where it talks about the problem with the ibm computer, and titor being correct, it also states that the problem with the computer was not public knowledge.
the reason i point this out is because i read on this same page a long time ago, and, other places, that the ibm computer problem he states actually IS public knowledge, and went a long way in showing that this guy might not have been who he says he was.
furthermore, i think this page not only needs to show the "predictions" and statements made by titor, but if they've been proven wrong, wherever it's valid. 10:44, 20 september 2006 (UTC)
::The information about the IBM 5100 was likely very obscure public knowledge, as opposed to being an outright secret.  I've seen it mentioned that only a "few dozen" people in the world would have known about this specific bit of knowledge.  But I can't find where I read that.  -- GIR 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IBM computer 

message: Is this vandalism?  Surely this should be "Was the name used" because even if the person was going to exist in the future he did use the name previously on message boards?  Webrunner 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism, but it is incorrect. I changed it, and i encourage you to change things yourself that you are think are wrong. Foobaz·o< 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have, but I figured something like the first sentence may have been left there for a reason in several edits. Webrunner 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "John Titor will be the name used" 

message: This is clearly a hoax by someone, unless anyone can offer any verifiable proof to the contrary (remember: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). As such, I must ask, why is it not classifed as a hoax anywhere on the page? Why is there no "Doubting Thomas" type of information in the article? Plus it doesn't mention Lichtenstein at all. Wilybadger 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not a CLEAR hoax. That's what makes this article, and the whole topic of "John Titor" so interesting and credible. He's one of the few people to make people speculate, think, and research his credibility. Some people believe him to be an obvious hoax, others believe him to be a solid, real "time traveller." It hasn't been proven to be a hoax, 'nor has it been proven to be real. To put in the article "this was a hoax" until it's a solid fact that it was some random guy hoaxing everyone, would be misleading. It's a personal opinion on if it was a hoax or not. If you read up on his old posts which are archived at the website, apparently the only way to know for sure if he wasn't for real, is if by the year 2008, everyone is not made aware of this "war" that is going on. Currently, in 2006, apparently he made prediction that it would become apparently that there is some sort of "civil war" going on in the United States. People still argue that it could be true, as President Bush keeps trying to push the Patriot Act, which infringes on our freedom and rights... In which, if you'll read some of Titor's writings, Titor repeats quite a few times about people having their rights taken away from them. This was mentioned WAY before 9-11 where the agenda for Bush wasn't to push the "Patriot Act" upon us. Which, gives us something to think about. Unless you can prove 100% that this guy was a hoax, it shouldn't be noted as a "hoax" in the actual article. THAT is why it's such a fascinating article, it hasn't been able to be 100% proven wrong or right. IceSage 09:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite right.  One could argue that the US is in a civil war I suppose.  It's all semantics; as they say about the supposed Iraq civil war/sectarian violence.  But Titor said that there would be a "Waco type" event every month starting in 2004.  Now I'm sure that someone could say that this or that is a suitable substitute.  The Titor posts can be taken so out of their literal context that almost any real world event can be interpreted as fitting into his supposed metaphors.  So the Patriot Act might seem to fit.  But if Titor had posted ten years earlier, one could have said the actual Waco fit.  Or Ruby Ridge, or the "Freemen", etc.  The other problem is the worldines theory which means that our world may have a different destiny than his anyway, etc.  And of course WP:NOR means that we can't decide that a theory is debunked all on our own.  --JGGardiner 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an obvious hoax. His predictions are already proven wrong. As for the civil war, the US was far closer to a civil war in the 1960s than in 2005. Having rights taken away is so vague it's ridiculous. While the IBM 5100 can tap larger computers, it wouldn't be needed in the future with even better computers. The whole premise of John Titor is utter nonsense and an obvious publicity stunt. Rlevse 10:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Any claim to be a time traveler is a clear hoax, especially when not a single accurate prediction was made.  And few things can be "100% proven wrong or right", including that men have landed on the moon.  But the preponderance of evidence and reason supports the conclusion that they have, just as the preponderance of evidence and reason supports the conclusion that "John Titor" is not a time traveler from 2036.  As for Titor talking about people's rights being taken away from them, he repeatedly referred to events like Waco, which had already happened.  There has been plenty of talk of rights being taken away since the founding of the republic, and the notion that such talk lends credence to Titor's claim to be a time traveler is worse than silly. -- 68.6.55.65 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxes 

message: "However there has been some argument as to whether the Winter Olympics was included in the prediction. Some have also speculated as to whether the predictions made by Titor were predicting only one course of the future, suggesting humans may have created an alternate future by going about things differently. This is an example of the many possible interpretations of Titor's seemingly specific predictions"
Does anyone else, when they read that, think that is just a poor justification for the increasing evidence against the already ridiculous claims?  And who are these "some" that the article refers to?  Did so many people believe this guy so much that they actually prevented the Winter Olympics from ending?  I didn't think he was THAT popular. 199.126.137.209 04:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The evidence is clearly starting to show this as a hoax.  Whatever happens, some will claim alternate timelines or try to reinterpet facts in a way that stills show this as not a hoax.  Regardless, this topic has shown itself as noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  How can it be rewritten to show its significance while still showing this is probably a hoax?  Suggestions are welcome.  Be bold.  LarryQ 16:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel wordish stuff

message: I would like to nominate this article for speedy deletion, on the grounds that John Titor is not notable. Thanks. 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a happy medium between speedy deletion and keeping an article outright.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion 

message: A user designated as Alan950 deleted 95% of this article and replaced it with some (bogus, I imagine) "confession" that he was John Titor, that he was sorry, etc.  So--I reverted it back to the way it was.  Should an Administrator be alerted?  ProfessorPaul 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A deletion sans explanation

message: If a time traveller really did visit us, but we percieve his story to be a hoax, then potentially his visit would not alter the future or his history.  This may allow him to return to the parrallel time line from which he came without any significant changes.
130.113.210.241 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That lame apologia makes no sense: If someone's aim is to pass unnoticed, they don't market their presence, period. ~ Occam's razor. Furthermore you're guilty of argument from postulate by groping for the invisible carrot without first establishing the veracity of the sales pitch: one must lay the foundation before rushing to build the house. 172.134.189.251 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese, perhaps I will be president some day, and perhaps everyone who thinks that John Titor is real is a gullible twit. -- 68.6.55.65 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps the discrepencies were intentional 

message: With some things (extraterrestrial life, for example) it's possible to argue either way in favour of their existence or non-existence, theoretically or practically. I think the time has surely come to put this one in the big box of hoaxes. Every 'prediction' this bloke made turned out to be horsefeathers and there isn't a shred of evidence for any of it. It would have been great if it was true. But it was lies.Garrick92 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great?  I thought it would have been horrible.  Especially the nuclear war part.  =)  But I don't think this article is going anywhere any time soon.  I would definitely like to see more information regarding actual belief in "Titorism" since the widespread belief is part of the supposed notability of the article.  --JGGardiner 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, yes: I had forgot about the nuclear war bit and was concentrating on the way in which the inventor of Titor breathed vibrant new life into the story of Marty McFly (right down to the timetravelling car). Funny old thing memory, ain't it? :¬) Of course, the beauty of this story is that we could be in one of those slightly divergent Many Worlds where it all went a bit wrong ... nah, it's a crock. Garrick92 10:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: C'mon

message: Someone, probably the maker of it, turned this page into an advert for the documentary about John Titor. I removed them, butthe external link to the page still remains —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.102.213.173 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Advert  

message: One part of the enduring story is that the 5100 was not known to be mainframe compatible in 2000/1, and that a former IBM engineer pointed out this "secret".
Actually the emulation of other machines in microcode was the entire idea of the 5100. For instance, just read over this description of the 5100 that was first published on the web in 1999: Instead of being written in the native microcode instruction set of the processor, the 5100's language interpreters are written for more sophisticated "virtual machines", and the microcode emulates those machines. This was done in order to economize on the amount of ROS needed to implement the language interpreters, and perhaps to speed the product development. The APL microcode emulates a subset of the System/360 instruction set, while the BASIC microcode emulates the System/3.2
The fact that the supporters believe the whole Titor story is sad enough, but that they couldn't bother to look up something that is trivially available on the web demonstrates the level of intellectual lazyness that is endemic to these stories. Maury 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM 5100

message: Does anyone else think it looks a bit like a vagina? I don't want to say what the two little 'whooshes' look like. Cloveoil 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, yeah. :) But the article benefits from the picture, and WP is not censored, so.. A Train take the 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No way dude, I wouldn't want to censor it, I just thought maybe I had been looking at too much goatse, and it was warping my mind. Thanks dude. Cloveoil 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Insignia 

message: John Titor's time machine had no such part.  Somone was trying to be funny.  I removed the "extra" part from the list. Abbail 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a part from the Back to the Future Delorian is a (bad) attempt at humor. That said, if a reader refers to wikipedia to make a time machine, flux capacitors are the least of their worries. - superβεεcat  15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flux capacitor