Talk:John Titor/Archive 1

STOP REMOVING THE NOTICES
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)

NPOV/Contradiction notices
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)

Proof of hoax from photos?
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)

Hoax proof from archive?
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)

Titor's post for how far he can travel
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)
 * I don't think he ever states that the machine is capable of travelling forwards in time. Krackpipe 15:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * But maybe he can't travel beyond the point where he started from? [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is as important as the real thing
The following statement was removed from the main body of the article: "Exposed as a hoax in August 2005." There existed no follow-up information. While I am not a "Titorite" by any means, this statement seemed as if it was tacked on (as there was no further information in the article regarding August 2005). Lobsterkins 10:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

i cant be bothered to look, but i do recall that someone has claimed to be the inventor of this hoax and had some sort of proof. prolly find it on google. you'd think this article would reference that

Why was the reference to the Olympics being cancelled cut out altogether? Did he actually make that claim? If so, a reference should be in the article somewhere --203.164.37.168 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Anything new about this Olympics thing? Reply to David Latapie 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

--

I wrote most of the original John Titor entry. Please note that this does not mean that I believe it or am evangelical about it. What I believe regarding this matter, or any of us believe, is neither here nor there - remember the neutral point of view aspect of Wikipedia. If you decide to add to the John Titor entry, please bear this in mind. Deal in facts and not opinions. I notice that a lot of people editing this entry have got emotional about the subject. There's no room for that here. Sites like www.johntitor.com let you discuss the whole thing - head over there if you have a burning desire to express your opinion for/against. I posted the initial John Titor entry because I thought that it's a pretty interesting Internet phenonemon. I also think it has some literary merit in that it raises some interesting questions about the times we live in. Keir

--

I am not an expert on time travel and am very skeptical of the whole story but one key element of many is the actual possibillity of time travel just recently a group of scientist announced the fact they had discovered and used a method of time travel although it was limited to seconds of time travel it was used in a scientific experiment and witnessed by experts. To me this was enough to make a shadow of possibillity of truth in the story.While looking into this I saw quite a few remarkable "coincidences" although I will reserve my judgement of the truth of this ,I dont want to just dismiss it out of hand even though it would be the easy way out.

The following passage was removed from the main body of this article:


 * "In 2003 he was proven to be a hoax."

By 209.20.216.28 with the following comment:


 * If you're going to claim it was proven to be a hoax, please post a citation of the proof. So far no proof has been found by me.

As a neutral observer, I think this is a reasonable contention. But if there is proof, go ahead and revert. I simply moved the commentary here because it did not belong in the article. Hadal 09:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Where is Pamela when you need her?

---

Point 7
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)

IBM 5100

 * 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)

---Input from Spencer Brown

I am a 27 year IBM employee, have been in the system software/operating system world all my life. I did have a co-worker who had an IBM 51xx back in the day (late 70s).

The "big secret" (which was well known inside IBM at the time) is that the 51xx PALM processor supported the System/360/370 instruction set (or at least the user-mode portion of it), so that 360 apps could be downloaded to the 51xx and run. However, IBM never made this download-and-run capability available to end-users. Instead, IBM engineers took the APL and Basic interpreters from the System/360, burned them onto ROM chips, and ran them on this "little" box. The end user, in turn, used the APL or Basic interpreters to create and run APL and Basic programs, to accomplish their goals.

The System/360, of course, was the dominant computer of the day.

The above is quite factual. Now I delve into opinion:

Opinion #1:

There really wasn't a huge conspiracy inside IBM to "protect their business" -- rather, IBM had a marketing goal of producing a small, portable APL/Basic machine, and this was the easiest way, technically, to get there. Since IBM had an already-developed, already-supported, proven set of interpreters for APL and Basic running on a System/360-based timesharing system (CALL/360 was its name), the quickest and cheapest path to accomplishing their goal was to simply run those very same interpreters on the 51xx. Again, these facts were pretty well known inside IBM, at least in the development community (which is where I was).

Opinion #2:

The claim that it was necessary to travel to the past to retrieve an IBM 5100 so that people in the future could continue to run legacy applications is just a load of crap.

Look, if I were a computer technologist of the future, I would have access to all the information I needed to run a legacy IBM mainframe system and/or application. All the specs are widely available. In 6 months or less, I could write, test, and put into production an emulator that would run System/360 apps a million times faster than an old IBM 5100 -- even if one didn't already exist (which it most likely would).

And, they are forgetting that the 5100 only emulates the USER MODE instruction set of the System/360. Legacy mainframe applications require an OPERATING SYSTEM to run underneath them, which requires the FULL instruction set, including privileged mode instructions. So even if they DID get an IBM 5100, they could not run mainframe apps (in general) on it without a lot of work to support them. As much work as necessary to emulate it.


 * 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. &mdash; B.Bryant 23:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

points 5 and 7
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)

pics
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)

Or rather, brought it from the year 2036, right? --ekimdrachir 01:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle "Are We There Yet?"
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: Or better still: If the latter is true, then it's a new sentence, and the quotes and capitalization are wrong: OwenX 16:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle, "Are We There Yet?"
 * John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle, Are We There Yet?
 * John Titor predicted hackneyed Ice Cube vehicle. Are we there yet?

I'm just joking. I was talking about the movie "Are We There Yet?" I used the word "vehicle" in the sense of a work created to showcase a certain actor. Like Jim Carrey's early movies had no purpose other than to show how funny Jim Carrey was supposed to be. Like that. He Sucks Cock..... I thought that usage of the word was pretty universally understood. I guess not. Superking 21:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hoax
It's already been proven to be a hoax.

You don't need IBM hardware to parse 32 bit integers and hereby solve the "UNIX problem".

People are just as apt at inventing methods to limit the impact of the UNIX changeover problem TODAY, not 2 years before it actually happens (though knowing human history it would be a likely scenario that no one bothers to even change it until it is nearing too late).

Stop delving into the physics and time travel paradoxes of it, this story has already been proved a fake simply because he needs a 70's computer to overcome a 2000's software engineering problem.

Seriously, how the hell can you believe this crank.

I've yet to find a computer scientist who won't laugh at his "synopsis".

We try to be serious encyclopedia...
...and we keep articles like this one???

YAWN


 * Pointing out fraud and hoax artists like this and Sollog is serious and encyclopedic. He is at least a noteworthy crackpot. ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 03:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash; B.Bryant 23:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Pages like this are what makes Wikipedia great. I heard about this hoax from a friend, and sure enough, there's an article here on it. I knew next to nothing about this hoax until I read what's listed here... Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? Ransak 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this page gets this comment a lot
I am a big fan of wikipedia, use it daily and advocate it to all within earshot, but this page is a little embarrasing.

I think in principle this is a perfectly valid article (some others have suggested it shouldn't exist at all), but it reads like some sort of excercise in reductio ad absurdum of the concept of NPOV.

In situations where a claim is raised that has no definitive proof either way ("I am from the future, I don't care if you believe me."), and in fact is setup in a way to make definitive proof impossible by definition ("If anything I predict is wrong, it is because I changed the timeline."), shouldn't there be some sort of "marginally reasonable person" litmus test for the validity of the argument?

What's worse, the article seems heavily biased towards the position that John Titor is a time traveler from the future. For example, the wording of the opening paragraph assumes that "John Titor" is a real person, is quick to praise his claims for vaguely irrelevant qualities (literate? evocative? and what exactly are they "reasonably consistent" with?), makes it sound like the "believers" aren't confined to a few people on a couple of message boards and describes the "non-believers" as 'skeptics', a term which is technically appropriate here, but which, in common use signifies someone who tends toward doubt primarily and instinctively, and does not accept that which most "regular" people would. This all makes it sound like there's a pile of evidence, which a few select individuals choose to ignore. The article goes on in a similar tone.

Anyway, I don't have anything new to add to the whole "any opinion is a valid opinion" debate. All I can say is that I cannot, in good conscience, show this article to a grownup as part of something I recommend they use as an information resource. And I know I am not alone in feeling this way.

___________________________________________

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "bad information." The claims made by this guy are laid out in an evenhanded fashion, and the critiques are disclosed. In that sense, the article provides perfectly good information, just like a news story reporting on a hoax would. (This guy could be considered comparable, for example, to Emperor Norton.)

It should be noted that the whole thing is completely unprovable either way because of the timeline thing though. The multiple-worlds thing renders the task of verifying "future" claims utterly impossible because such future claims could be made with reference to any world, including those that the verifier did not have access to. Since a key requirement for scientific reasoning is falsifiability, and this guy's claims, by his own contention of the truth of multiple-worlds, can't be falsifiable, at the very least they'd have to be considered purely a matter of faith. ___________________________________________

The first paragraph of the Synopsis section describes his claims as both falsifiable and precise (the latter they are certainly not, no matter which timeline we are talking about). Seems like that's a little overzealous, no?

The Year 2038 Problem
In the summary I have changed the main reason why Titor "came back" for an IBM 5100.

John Titor did not come back for a year 2038 bug fix.


 * John Titor 15 November 2000 14:41: I was "sent" to get an IBM computer system called the 5100. It was one the first portable computers made and it has the ability to read the older IBM programming langages in addition to APL and Basic. We need they system to "debug" various lagacy computer programs in 2036. UNIX has a problem in 2038.

The last sentence brought the confusion about the "need to fix an UNIX bug". Several months later he clears this up:


 * John Titor 11 January 2001 11:49: I don't believe I ever said I came back looking for a UNIX bug fix. I came back for a computer system. Don't you find UNIX usefull now?

The above two quotes are added to the article under "Titor's predictions in detail" (#13). MadIce

___________________________________________

I've moved the above from the prediction section to the Year 2038 section. I am not happy about that section though. The Year 2038 Bug is a software bug which cannot be fixed by 64-bits hardware. In that respect it is similar to the Y2K bug (which could be fixed at a single location (often the OS) and by fixing the first 2 digits in the app). The software itself needs to be recompiled with a 64-bits time counter. I need to think about how to word that without becoming too technical. MadIce

___________________________________________

OK. I gave it a shot. MadIce

___________________________________________

Added a quote which clears up the connection with the year 2038 bug. Also made that more clear in the synopsis. MadIce

___________________________________________

Because the space to explain the ins and outs of the year 2038 problem was limited I wrote a larger Year 2038 problem article, which tries to do a better job in explaining the problem. Link to the article added. No references in that page to this article or John Titor, because that article is intended to be more general. MadIce

___________________________________________

Just to provide a possibility... perhaps at some point there was a "one time pad" created for all 4 billion seconds (32-bit) of the epoch ending 2038. Given the "second" (a reasonable syncronization interval) of the origin of a transmitted message, the mapped "pad" for that 32-bit value needs to be used. Now you have a reasonable explination for why someone may have a legit concern about a 2038 deadline. What if the hardware and the pad on the receiving end of the message cannot be safely altered to support a 64-bit clock. There are lots of "anti-tamper" devices; perhaps some 1970s vintage military computer sitting somewhere in 2036 needs to be accessed, and cannot be tampered with for fear of it "destroying" itself, and there is a one-time pad that needs to be used to access it -- a one time pad that is mapped to one of the 4 billion (32-bit) integers, ending in just two years (2038). Now you have a dramatic explaination of why the deadline is important, how the "unix clock" (32-bit integer) way of thinking could cause a problem -- etc. Keep in mind that ALL encryption is breakable except for one-time pads. It's the only truly secure means of encryption. Nearly all of our modern day public/private key encryption/signing/etc. is based on theoretically breakable "one way" math, such as integer factorization. If a military computer needed to be absolutely sure it was talking to someone, a one-time pad is a safe bet.

Add to that the possibility that the computer Titor was after, the specific model, was the receiver (or more likely transmitter) of the message described above. (I say transmitter because of its size.) It might be critical to have a pristine version of that computer to know the EXACT behavior of the hardware in that device, the precise timings of the circuits, the physical composition (to the molecular level) of its hardware, to compute the given pads from a known seed and algorithm. Or maybe to just time the device properly.

If I was going to make it more dramatic, I'd weave in the "nuclear football", or some other sort of necessarily portable device.

Now, I'll add that I'm not necessarily a believer in the Titor performance art, but you need to think a bit more broadly than to just dismiss this as "momdify the hardware for 64-bits!" and "the 5100 just emulated the 360!"

Retroactive narrative support is a fun creative diversion.

The linguistic argument
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" &mdash; 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) (dmh on wiktionary)

Fortean categorization
Cortonin, noting your rv edit today, I have to respectfully disagree with your point, although I will admit that Charles Fort didn't write about Titor. I'll concede that the Titor stuff is quasi-fortean or maybe sub-fortean, but only due to the fact that the truth of his predictions has yet to be fully demonstrated. If more predictions turn out to be true or if his story is verified in some other way, than that is certainly a fortean phenomenon. &mdash; FJ | hello 4:20 PM, May 6, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

Australia/US base argument
(Australia gets nuked too in Titor's story, even though there are no permanent US military bases there).

This argument could be invalidated by suggesting that there is no reason a permanent US base could not be built between the present day and the speculated war. Regardless, while there are no US bases in Australia in the conventional sense, there are valuable US interests - in particular the Pine Gap base.


 * I'm not certain, but I think this text is not an argument for or against the credibility of JT, but simply relates his claim that Australia blames the U.S. for being nuked in 2036, despite the fact that (in his story) it will not then be a strong military ally (and that the missiles themselves are fired by Russia).
 * Actually, this point is a bit confusing since it could be read in various ways. It should be made clearer why the lack of US bases in Australia is significant.
 * Wragge 17:35, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I scrolled down to the end of this talk page and was glad to see someone else bringing up Pine Gap. I agree that there should be an additional comment tacked on, regarding the existence of Pine Gap and other US "interests". The US and Australia have been involved militarily for many years, and this casts quite a bit of doubt on Titor's claims - if the US and Australia were to split as allies, it would be quite a big deal. Since WWII, the Australians have had a close military relationship with the US. MacArthur's base in WWII was in Brisbane, and thousands of American sailors and soldiers were stationed in the country or went to Australia for R&R. Later, the Australians supported America in the Vietnam campaign, and continued to participate in military exercises as part of the ANZUS pact.

Pine Gap may not be a conventional military base as you might see in Germany, but has been located in Australia for over 20 years, is run by American personnel, and is known to be Australia's main target should nuclear warfare breakout. More importantly, the *Aussies* consider it to be an American base. Pine Gap was instrumental in satellite imaging during the first Persian Gulf war. Almost all Americans are ignorant of its existence (and I say that not in an insulting way, I'm American and did not learn about it until I read one of John Pilger's books).

In short, I believe that Titor's ignorance of Pine Gap and of other US staging areas in Australia (such as the WA staging areas for nuclear subs), while announcing otherwise, further demonstrates that he is a fraud. I suspect that he is confusing Australia with New Zealand, and their insistence on no US bases (and their refusal to host US subs with nuclear weapons). However, I'm not an expert on his past commentaries so I hope someone else can edit the article to show this problem. 67.10.131.229 5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Travel to 2000 nonsensical?
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)
 * That's exactly correct. John Titor 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Some Idiot
Who's deleted the article? They aren't cool and they aren't funny. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to air your views as to whether he's telling the truth or not. Reverting to previous version.

Missing Link
"... and to a fictional timeline for a role-playing game (see external links)."

I'm not seeing the link listed, would this be a mistake?


 * The website doesn't exist yet, so a link would be pointless.

Twelve Monkeys
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)

Or Back to the Future, without Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox. 218.167.183.6 04:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's most similar to the inspiration for the film Twelve Monkeys, La Jetee. The World War III cause for time travel is the largest similarity. Someone should consider adding the links.

Misleading turn of phrase.
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)

Video Footage
I think I've found the video footage of the time machine disappearing. It's at. You need Windows Media Player to view it, and it's a little bit dark, so change the contrast. It shows John holding the IBM 5100 in one hand and a laser pointer in the other. He turns on the laser pointer and uses it as if it were a torch. He turns it off and gets another strange-looking device. According to the pages of the time machine manual that John scanned and put on the internet (You can see them at ), this device is the remote control. He presses a button on it, and a very bright light emerges. He walks into it, then the light disappears. This file is around 7.7 megabytes. Hugh Jass 01:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The video is shot inside and the alleged John Titor just leaves there, whereas according to the message board posts, the machine is something he'd have had inside a car. Besides, the space displacement effects look like something someone could do on their computer. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This video has nothing to do with Titor. Go to the base of the site  and you will see that it is about a different time traveler named Steven.


 * If you watch the video slowly you can see the laser beam jump position around th 4-6 second mark. At one moment it is pointed up and to the left maybe the 320 degree mark on a full circle protracter, then the next moment it suddenly moves straight up and the next it is back in the original position.  Check it out.

Pronunciation of "Titor"
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)


 * 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)

These opinions are in despite by an original poster:
The pics may be copyrighted but are in an archive. Link: (and original pics from Titor -- two websites all from original posters on the forums he posted on!)
 * 1)

Cleaned up by Titor himself and presented to Art Bell, because the readers asked for better pictures made on Post to Post BBS of Art Bell's forum: http://web.archive.org/web/20010522234641/http://artbell.com/letters11.html

The second group of pictures are actually the first pictures that Titor presented to the forum members originally at Art Bell's BBS forum Post to Post and are at the Anomalies website since Art Bell did not put those pictures up but put up the cleaned-up pictures so they are like (perhaps) free domain, and since they are the same, I do not know what to think of which ones this site can use! http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

There is so much more: for instance the name of John Titor and the reason given by this person claiming to be a time-traveler himself should be used also in the topic thread at the time that originally was on Art Bell's BBS forum Post to Post: (it is not in the archive, but the thread can be viewed at Anomalies: Essentially without looking it up from Titor:

"Titor is a name of a real person. It is not a question of who but when." (and it is also thought that it means a person in Florida since he was there at the time.) However many opinions are given that the family has moved out of Florida, but to me this is unknown, and there are others (Haber) who may know, but I am not looking to find out! (Originally posted by Titor himself in the thread "I am from 2036"!

Also, original threads are still up at a forum: First pages (crawler did not copy more at the time): http://web.archive.org/web/20010413040119/bbs.artbell.com/showthread.php?threadid=1203

The next thread was corrupted which is in another topic thread but the entire thread is presented at Anomalies because it was asked to be put up, but this forum here listed it could not present the original thread (only the first post) since it was corrupted (I present the thread on the thread being corrupted and I did find it once, and if it is important, then I will attempt to find it again, I could not the second time, but I know it is still there, changing pages all the time because posting is still going on!) Thread: Time-travel Paradoxes http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=8772&page=112&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Now at Anomalies since it was corrupted: http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000277

These are original threads still up at the original forum where TimeTravel_0 posted and the date and all of that:

Thread: Topic Limited to 11 Pages http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=9237&page=106&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Thread: Parallel Universe http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=9086&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Now MadIce did a nice job of posting the threads, but the dispute is what Titor said actually and that is what should be here at this website, not all these opinions and conjectures that even science may not give an answer too, as of yet!

You can not say with opinion why TimeTravel_0 used the name John Titor, only what he posted by the horses's mouth himself!

There are too many opinions here and not the real facts as said by Titor. And JohnTitor.com only came upon his postings later (by a couple of years) since the original posters are the ones that even put up the postings and the original postings by Titor himself at the TimeTravelInstitute and also saved those postings from Art Bell's Post to Post Forum at the original time!

Bob Dubke is also the engineer (or at the time) about the IBM 5100 who replied that Titor was correct about the IBM 5100, which is also given at Anomalies website somewhere in that maze of postings in a thread (he was e-mailed). Also in that maze of threads there at Anomalies are real scientists giving real opinions about Titor and his claims. (Mostly all claim that they do not think he is a real time-traveler, at the time they were e-mailed, which is in another thread at Anomalies!)

But although things have changed, and it may be for any number of reasons why scientists do not think he was a real time traveler or any other number of reasons, since not all of them agree, perhaps another thought can be read from a real physicist Amos Ori of Israel about the possibility of time travel recently here: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050711/pf/050711-4_pf.html

Of course, this is all from let's say the -- horses's mouth instead of conjecture after conjecture after opinion, after opinion, and that is why real facts should be stated.

This will not prove or disprove Titor by any means, so some of the page about Titor here is just opinion, and the rest like I stated should be from Titor himself, all of which can be found in his original postings.

Thank you for your time, and although I could probably 'edit' Titor's page, it will take more time, and I would only present original facts, not opinions, although opinions are the only thing one will get from any physicist contacted about Titor, and there are others in a thread maze over at Anomalies, and also Dr. Brown's reply, which all can only be considered as their opinion. If fact, Dr. Brown is smart no doubt but actually he is in a different field of physics (lattices) mainly and teaches Graduate Physics at Duke University.

Of course the physicists do not think so -- as of now, or as of today, but SuperString Theory is being worked on -- by mathematicans now to help out the physicists at Princeton -- forget the name -- Edward Witten, I think, yes, about M Theory and all the rest of the SuperString Theory, which Titor states is the reason why in the future his machine -- a time-travel gravity distortion unit is made in the first place -- according to Titor's World and his original postings -- himself!

Thanks for your time, but all of this page about Titor is just about all opinions, and the real facts should be stated!

That in my opinion contains much more mystery, then what I preceive as the hysteria presented here about this person.

Facts that we can change this Worldline, but Titor did not think that we would, or could, but again, his postings cover that, and should actually be presented.

Not something like a third of the universes may be similiar ........ as presented here. There is no scientific basis for any of that mularky. In fact, one can only go by what Titor said as they think about parallel universes, in fact, physicists nowadays dispute his renderings in his postings -- as of now, as of today!

Anyone can not say that it was a hoax, since until 2036 is reached, anyone will know then, and using words such as that, is not a real attempt to present the concept given by Titor, but again another opinion that is not needed in the article.

In other words, post what Titor said, post what science thinks nowadays, and leave the rest of it to yourselves!

And you will not get a clear picture ( in my opinion) from JohnTitor.com, until some people actually read the threads Titor posted on, and what Titor actually said, which was from questions from the posters posting at the time!

Now, sit up straight at your computer!

The links are real links but did not take here!
I myself do not know what to do about the first link, but it is a real link, perhaps I can disguise it and present but it will have to be copied and pasted to get to the archive page:

>>>>>>>http://web.archive.org/web/20010522234641/http://artbell.com/letters11.html<<<<<<<<<< maybe this will work but again it is there!

Again some other links, first one is opinions from listeners of the radio show -- CoasttoCoastAM http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/08/10.html#t

Thread: "I am from 2036" posted at Anomalies: Original thread (although edited slightly -- complete original on John's page at Anomalies, link given above!) http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000024

What Titor really said: (in the thread -- I am from 2036)

If you are referring to the conflict and war in your future, I’m not sure I’m specific enough to help any individuals avoid anything. Suggesting there is a war coming is a bit different than saying avoid Washington DC at 3:45 AM on March 12, 2015.

Also no video was ever presented (to anyone who should know about the video) as Titor said he would have to think about how it would affect his family here on this worldline, whatever worldline we think we are on --- with collective consciousness! (which Titor also brought up!)

Titor also stated that he did not seek followers to believe him (maybe a reference to terrorists perhaps, but that is opinion) and that he should not be believed. Original words on the links above.

This means that the real topic was not about what happens in the future, which also other people have also thought about, and are here in this timeframe also, which is not known about Titor (being here), and that the topic was the possibility of time travel!

Anything else, will take more time, to look up, but Anomalies is the place where all the discussion and physicists (e-mailed) or the theory is at present. And also the Chat Titor had, the fact that he loved orange wine (according to him) and anything else!

oops!
Sorry I accidently put the Battlefront picture on, because I thought it would save the image over my file.
 * riiight. well, please fix it. At the time of this comment, the old image can still be found here.
 * in the meantime, i've removed the picture and caption; it was making the page nonfunctional, at least on my end.

Obviously a hoax

 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I agree that it's obviously a hoax. His Majesty, Haile Selassie always spoke as someone with authority, and accurately predicted World War 2 and the Arms Race and even the Eritrean war, well before they happened.  He once said that mankind would learn how to do many marvellous things, but he added something to the effect that "breaking the time barrier was something that would never be permitted to the sons of man."  He always sounded like he knew what he was talking about, so that's why I believe him, and not this hoax.  ፈቃደ 19:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Titor#Proof_of_hoax_from_photos.3F and the section above and below. Also he says he wouldn't trade world war 3 for anything in the world, that doesn't sound like anyone that has been in a war, talk to anyone that has been in a war, esp. ww2 and they will tell you... 220.233.48.200 15:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Real John Titor
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)

Too many tags
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

IBM Special Features?
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)
 * 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)

The civil war?
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)

The Titors
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)

ww3
theres like a few more hours left in 2005 and it hasent started yet if this isent real are all his predictions a hoax?

VoIP
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)

Comments on the statistical argument
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)

Deletion
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * The solution to a content problem is not to delete the article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If not a delete then a total rewrite and revision. Mike 09:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which does not require an AFD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Nuclear War
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)

John Titor a Bajoran?
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)

Total cleanup and rewrite required
This article is totally out-of-whack in terms of discussions of totally irrelevant technicalities round this hoax. 95% of the current article can just be deleted as being unencyclopedic. Someone may want to copy the content to some fan site, if they really want to keep this text. It may be suitable for the Unencyclopedia for instance.

If this phenomenon is worth mentioning at all, it should by way of a short NPOV article, as can be found on the non-English versions. -- Egil 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. The problem with this article is that it necessarily descends into analysis of Titor’s sayings.  A quote might be relevant if it identified or explained something but everything here is simply purported evidence to be analyzed by supporters and detractors.  Something like:  “Titor said x.  It is unlikely that x will occur and has not as of this date.  However, x may occur.  Perhaps he meant xy which occurred in 2003 and was rather similar.  Or perhaps he meant xyz which may occur in 2019 according to some predictions.  In any event, divergent worldlines mean that a non-occurrence of x does not disprove the existence of Titor.”

"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth." --JGGardiner 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. -Will Beback 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Read Verifiability. In addition to lack of verifiability, most of this article is in breach with what What Wikipedia is not, including a publisher of original thought, indiscriminate collection of information. -- Egil 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Im glad the article is starting to be made into a article fit for wikipedia and glad I removed my bit for deletion and look forward to future developments. Mike 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The current version of this article is too short to let first-time-readers to know anything concrete about John Titor. The fact that he claimed those things are certainly verifiable, by looking at those websites, etc. And he existed by claiming things, that's the whole point. Erasing his claim equals erasing his existence or any need to put him here. You can erase the unneccesary discussion or speculation because they are basically non-sence. But I think you should let people know what he said because that's the only concequence of his existence. If I had an easy button to revert thing I will certainly do that right now. However restoring everything by keyboard is beyond my ken. --atou 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you you have been outvoted and the article is currently undergoing redevelopment. It will grow again and hopefully this time sources will be included and the fake and real wont merge like previously done. Mike 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ok. This is not presidential election. I just hope to express my opinion that at least for an encyclopedia we should be concrete. And NPOV doesn't mean short and incomplete, which I found the current version is. --atou 10:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Detailed discussions about the actual claims made for this Titor figure is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite or reference primary sources. We do not censor them, and I'm sure anyone interested in this topic can follow the external links, as required. If the Titor phenomenom has been covered by reputable ways, for instance by major newspapers of other, we should base our coverage on this. If not, we should question the notability of this Titor. -- Egil 10:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If readers follow links on all topics, then there is no need for such an encyclopiedia. I agree the detailed discussion is trash. But erasing all of his claims is going too far. His claims are the only reason why people are interested in him. Like when talking about Shakespear we cannot simply say "He is an ancient author, lived in xxxx" and period. We have to quote his writings. Here too, we have to quote his sayings. --atou 10:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but you need to cite sources etc... for his actual claims, this is supposed to be a factual article after all Mike 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am from 2042. I have come to this time to retrieve a reasonable version of this Wikipedia article. In 2042 it has been so full of useless material for so long that we just don't have a reasonable version to revert to (what with the nuclear holocaust and all). But if you people could just keep this page reasonable that would make things easier for us all. Believe me it is becoming increasingly tough by 2042 to find an 80 year old car to time travel in. Thanks in advance (you know what I mean). --JGGardiner 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope that people can take a joke.


 * Back to reality -- I understand your concerns Atou but I must disagree. I think that his quotes are for the most part unnecessary.  This article will never be long enough to include very many of his quotes; at present it only contains a few.  If you look at that (main) Shakespeare article that you mentioned for example, the only lines it quotes of his are from his tombstone (which he may or may not have written).  However Titor was not writing literature or poetry but rather passing along information in a Q&A.  It is more than enough to say, for example, that the Olympics were cancelled.  Why have the full quote?  The quotes are just thrown around like a pile of bricks for the partisans to pick up and build their analysis with.  As well, the quotes are primarily ones that supposedly tend to prove or disprove Titor, such as the Olympics one, which should be a minor part of Titor’s post-apocalyptic narrative.  The quotes don’t really inform and with the additional information I believe that they tend to obscure the topic rather than reveal it.  I’m not endorsing any particular version of this page but I think that the older versions were unsatisfactory.  --JGGardiner 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD result - keep
 Rob e  rt  04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Explain this one:

Guy goes back in time and convinces us to solve our problems.

Problems don't happen in the future.

No guy is needed to go back in time as the problems aren't happening

Since no guy goes back in time to tell us, the problems happen

But becuase they happen, a guy DOES go back in time.

We fix the problems, so no people in the future have them, so they don't send someone back in time...

...


 * Actually I think he came back mostly to steal that computer. Damn goobacks.  --JGGardiner 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

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