The use of the language isn’t something you can practice so that you
can change it. The linguistic synapses were formed by the time you were
three years of age – by age 12 they were fully developed (which is why
aphasic children over the age of 11 or 12 rarely learn to talk). Much
like a polygraph, the analysis would reveal the forced use of the
language via inconsistencies. There is no such anamoly in your syntax,
frequency, idiomatic usage, etc. Northern California baby-boomer
American Standard English with a slight Depression Era southeastern
U.S. “accent” from your parents.
Posted by Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire on 03-18-2001 06:18 PM
The answer to the question, “How does a person born in 1998 use the
language…?” is – who knows? Those persons are three years old today
and just learning to speak. What we do know, however, is that during
the course of their life they will learn how to talk by age 12…and
the common usage of the language will be statistically different than
what we use today.
Everyone knows this instinctively. We can listen to a movie made in
the 1960′s, for instance, and there is no doubt that we are listening
to a movie made in the 60′s based on the dialogue. We also have a
pretty good chance of figuring out that the script for a recently made
60′s style movie was written in the 90′s – the words seem forced,
contrived, unnatural. The untrained person may not be able to put his
or her “finger on it”, but they can tell the difference. It’s also
possible to quantify the difference.
Your new name is John “Boomer” Titor
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 06:21 PM
Well now John, Golly! I would take that there as a compliment.oh nelly!
yes siree! by george! You studied that area and I would say you “passed with fly’in colors!” “your as smart as a whip!”
oops! excuse me not using terminology from my generation.
WHATZZZZ UPPP??? (heheheeheheh)
Gee wizz! Im so confused I almost forgot what generation I came from!
what letter are we now? “X” “Y” “D”????-pamela
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-18-2001 06:51 PM
Come now Pamela, I think you shouldn’t take John’s defeats to
personal. I mean there is a difference when you defend a friend, and
when you stand up for someone because of devotion to a cause. I’m sure
John can fight his battles just well on his own.
After all, who else here has a cheerleader on the side supporting anyone in particular?
No one, just you…
So this question is for you John, do you feel like you need to be defended?
-J.C.
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 07:01 PM
Come now Javier, I was just having fun with Darby!!
But as for my cheerleading….
Give me a “J”
Give me an “O”
Give me a “HN”
whats it spell? JOHN!!! GO JOHN GO!
heheheheh
[Edited by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 at 07:21 PM]
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-18-2001 08:30 PM
My bad Pamela, but I just call’em how I see’em
.You know, just like actions speak louder then words.
[Edited by Javier Cortez on 03-18-2001 at 08:34 PM]
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 08:46 PM
Good thing your not an umpire.
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 09:15 PM
John,
Darby said:”Your new name is John “Boomer” Titor.”
you might have to take this name since he COPYRIGHTED your other name! (snicker..heehehheeh.. I know you are laughing John!)
[Edited by Pamela Moore on 03-18-2001 at 09:27 PM]
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-18-2001 09:53 PM
Nah, I’ll give John something to really laugh about
.“Johnny has a girlfriend, Johnny has a girlfriend.”
I know I’m LOL, heehe
-Javier C.
Posted by Albert Cattoir on 03-18-2001 10:10 PM
Well, hopefully the Russians do not screw up the total eclipse in
the year 2017 passing through around the center line by Cleveland,
Ohio.
In fact, what can you do at the end of March of any year?
Well, you can visit your local astronomical society and view all 110 Messier object in the sky at night.
Only time during the year around when you can do this.
Don’t worry, your eyes will adjust to the dark.
Hooray, for the dark.
Posted by Phil Fiord on 03-19-2001 07:07 AM
Although I can appreciate the study of language and the
determination of locality based on that, I would suspect that IF John
is from the future, language pattern would have changed and in some
ways not progressed too much insofar as patterns. John painted a
picture of a world in distress for many years, and indeed our US.
Looking back in my studies to WW2, there were many things that changed
and progressed, but what did not change was language…..except slang
terms.
I have not noticed too many slang terms from John, but I have
noticed some (real or not) difficultly with certain phrasing. I refer
you back to earlier in the thread when questions arose from phrases
involving ‘sell out’ type of things. I am not an expert on language,
but aspire to be so I am not saying I am correct. I am just guessing
that if John is from the future, and less focus is applied to money and
greed, as he implied, phrases implying the selling and buying of goods
as slang, would be confusing. That remains consistent.
I am all for being skeptical, but approaching the language factor is
not, to me, proof John is from our time. Conversely, it does not imply
he is from the future either. His story actually supports the idea he
is from the future when subtleties such as what I mention are look at.
Go figure, we are still at the point of maybe-maybe not.
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 07:29 AM
John Wade: To get the date wrong, and so totally wrong, to me is absolute proof that this person is a fraud. John
Actually John, that doesn’t prove anything except he got the date
wrong, and that he is human. Even historians do not remember every
single, important date in history.
For instance… can you tell me the exact date and time that the
Lucitannia was sunk? Can you tell me the exact day and time of D-Day?
Can you tell me what day Louis Pasteur came up with the “vaccination”?
I mean… think about it. You can certainly look those things up if
you’re so inclined – and answer them, BUT, do you know them RIGHT NOW,
without looking them up?
Rick
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 07:36 AM
Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire: Darby I liked your take on John’s background. Please do mine now.
Rick
Posted by Phil Fiord on 03-19-2001 08:12 AM
I mean, this hole talk iz gettin’ perty intense, dude.
Any guesses? Where is that lingo from? Written language is
interesting, but if I were to go in the past, I would study the
language and customs. Much as one might study language and customs
before travelling abroad. Sounds like I am defending John, but I need
not do so. Here is the excerpt from Johns post on page 40:
>EMMETT:
>((John’s use of the English is very (and I mean VERY) >baby-boomer typical.))
>I actually worked quite hard on that.
John stated he worked on talking our talk. At the least, his story
is still plausible and consistent. May I urge people to quote the
phrases being used when being critical of them. Page numbers help. I am
enjoying the speculation, but linguistics in this case are also subject
to interpretation. My interpretation supports Johns assertion he is in
florida and a native of there.
Peace, Man.
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 08:13 AM
Interesting this “language” thing Darby came up with. I’m certain he
is correct in his assessment of listening to a movie made in the 1960s,
or ’50s. I know that I can personally tell you from the dialect of a
movie without having seen the video running approximately which year
the movie was made. Of course, there is a degree of inaccuracy in doing
so.
As far as dialect changes go, I’m sure that from decade to decade there
are obvious changes and some not so obvious changes. There are terms I
remember from when I was a kid that are used even now. There are things
I’ve seen in movies made before I was born, that also are in use, even
now.
I do not see that this placing someone based on their language is an exact science.
John/Pamela – Pictures. I have plenty of web space, and I expect
the site to remain online (though is has gone down on and off over the
past couple of years due to weird problems). My web site http://survival.anomalies.net and another site I assist in managing http://www.anomalies.net
are both available for the video, as well as the pictures. I have the
pictures already and will try to get them up on my site tonight – under
the heading of “Time Travel”.
If and when there is a video made available – I would be happy to
convert that into a format (or several formats) for the computer and
place it online for download. I would be more than willing to come film
it independently myself – if John wishes (besides which, I would love
to be there to see it for myself – if only to know for myself that it
is real).
So – John, you’re welcome to contact me privately and I will
personally arrange my own travel, and bring my cameras and video the
whole thing – with complete confidence that I will not reveal location,
time, date or anything else until after your departure.
About Albert Cattior… I’m wondering if Albert himself isn’t a
time traveler as well.. and is suffering some sort of time dysphasia or
something. <chuckles>
Speaking of that – John, if you have time before you go.. are there
any known mental disorders that are associated with time travel?
Lastly: Someone mentioned (Sorry, can’t remember who now, or where
I read it, but it was this forum) something about “shelters won’t be
needed”. If I understood the gist of this statement, it was meant in
the terms that if a nuclear attack becomes a reality, a shelter will be
useless.
That can not be further from the truth. I can tell you I am
accutely aware of what atomic/thermonuclear weapons are capable of
doing – and what they are NOT capable of doing. I also know that
depending on the attack and the type of weapon, not only is an attack
survivable, placing yourself and your loved ones, as well as a few
weeks worth of food in a fallout shelter will protect you from fallout
radiation.
My web site has survival information on it regarding such things, and
believe it or not, it comes from the US Government. So, even they
believe nuclear strikes are survivalable. They just do not press that
publicly, because 1) they do not want to panic people (because if the
government says you should have a shelter, conspiracy theorists
suddenly become convinced the government is trying to warn us without
warning us, it upsets natives of other nuclear powers into believing WE
will start a war – etc). 2) Doing so legitimizes the use of nuclear
weapons to everyone, thus making it more of a possibility they will be
used without a second thought to doing so. 3) It will raise the price
of land throughout the United States. Precived “safe zones” would go up
in value – especially with pre-existing shelters. I’m sure there are
other reasons I haven’t thought of, but suffice it to say that the
government DOES believe nuclear war is survivable. Just not by
everyone.
I believe it as well. I’m not one of those guys that wants to be
around for the blast. With my luck I would get blinded and blown
around, but not killed outright, leaving me blinded and crippled and
not able to fend for myself, left to die miserably. I’d prefer a
fighting chance. Give me a basement, some water and a little food and I
will make due. Don’t count the human race off as defeated the minute
the nukes start flying. We’ve been around a long time, and will
continue to be around for many more centuries.
The question is not, can or will the human race survive. The question is how WELL will they survive?
Rick
[Edited by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 at 08:18 AM]
Posted by Mel Reckling on 03-19-2001 08:32 AM
A total eclipse in Cleveland in 2017? WOW!! Finally something our
fair city will be famous for. By the way, we put out our “Flaming
River” back in 1969 for those of you who think it is still on fire.
We better get busy writing out invitations if we only have 16 years left.
Posted by Bob Marz on 03-19-2001 09:04 AM
Darby, As brilliant as I think you are, I just can’t buy it that
your linguistic analysis is all THAT comprehensive and precise. You
have no voice inflection, no body language or handwriting patterns to
supplement the analysis. Only his printed texts. And I think a smart
person, intuitively aware of the more common giveaways, could take care
to maintain a neutral linguistic demeanor. I suspect, if you do have a
high success rate with your method, it’s because you yourself have
psychic abilities (that are being sublimated through your more mundane
rationalization). Your leftbrain is doing a wonderful job explaining
what your rightbrain is doing. The breadth of your insights suggest,
otherwise, an external source of information.
Posted by Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire on 03-19-2001 09:07 AM
Rick,
You haven’t submitted enough written material to use statistically.
Boomer has submitted materials all over the net – thousands and
thousands of words. Its not magic or para-psychology. Its simply
statistics. Sorry.
Posted by Randy Empey on 03-19-2001 10:20 AM
Question:
quote:Basically,Answer:
tell us where you got your most recent profile for him —
textual-phrenology, amatuer detective work, imagination? Where?
quote:ItsOf course I am leaving out a lot, but I’d like to shine the hypothetical laser pointer at these two things.
not related to “written phrenology”. Its associated with linguistics
and statistical modelling of the use of English words in this case.
(And any detective work would definitely not be amateur <wink>
So … its not phrenology of the written word, and not amatueur
detective work, and we are led to think that it is not imagination or
non-amatueur detective work.
In fact, it is heralded as an off-shoot of modern linguistics and statistical modelling of the usage of English words.
If that is not at least simmular to textual-phrenology, I am misunderstanding things.
Which is completely possible.
But it involves statistics, which I’ve always had a superstitious disbelief in.
You have to be very carefull to qualify your results. Can you
establish a one to one relationship between certain subsets of
attributes and certain subsets of people? Not absolutely. But you may
be able to come close enough to make your 90% probable guesses — but
the amount of work that would really take would be staggering.
If you undertook it, then I salute you. But still respectfully
choose to view this as only one of many possibilities here, with no
special status.
The sample sizes involved (that I am aware of) are simply not large enough to lend the confidence levels you are implying.
It would take the analysis and comparison of billions of words from
millions of reasonably ‘representative’ individuals, and then a
relativily large number of words from the target.
At least thats my intuition, and I’ve yet to see proof or convincing evidence hinting strongly enough to the contrary.
John simply hasn’t written enough words here. Perhaps you’ve dug
through his trash and anaylyzed his snail-mail correspondence . ..
making your sample size bigger, and more representative … but would
it be big enough?
Way too many variables to play with here, even for the mythic strengths of ‘statistics’.
Language usage is mutable. Upbringing and other factors of
environment have effects. But so do conciouis decisions while
composing, the nature of the form of communication, the subject’s
emotional state at the moment, the proximity of a thesaurus, etc..
At the moment, ‘he’ could be a accidental persona who is the
results of thousands of chimpanzees in a labs across the usa, involved
in a program that posts the results from thier typing on gov. issued
typewriters onto the internet, when it seems to make sense. The timing,
and appearant ‘on topic’-ness is then just a weird coincedence.
That is just as likely as any of the profiles presented so far.
Explain why this isn’t phrenology of the written word — or diff. enough from phrenology that we should pay attention to it.
Maybe we should devote a thread to such ‘profiling’ … where gurus like yourself analyze all comers ….
—–
http://www.dictionary.com says:
quote:phre·nol·o·gy—–
n. Abbr. phren. The study of the shape and protuberances of the skull, based on the
now discredited belief that they reveal character and mental capacity.
How many days left here John?
If they started a ‘countdown’ would it embarrass you or feed your ego?
[Edited by Randy Empey on 03-19-2001 at 10:50 AM]
Posted by Lola Montez on 03-19-2001 11:25 AM
I thought Darby’s observations interesting. Since I read his post I
have tuned into a couple of old movies; 40′s or 50′s stuff. The
differences can be subtle but they are there. I will now be listening
for those linguistic time bubbles whenever I hear conversation or a
movie. It is especially fun listening to my nephews in their early
twenties. I agree that during crisis those sorts of changes may happen
more slowly (with less media input) but I should think John’s phrases
and slang would more resemble that of my nephew’s than my own. Also, I
don’t understand why it would have been important to study the nuances
of the time for John’s particular mission. Certainly, a turn 1900′s era
gentleman could carry on a conversation today without being suspected
of being a time traveler.
This is an interesting and educational way to view John’s claims.
Far superior to mindless bashing or searching for stock tips. I bet
John enjoys this scrutiny as well. After all, what does he have to
loose if we believe him or not. This board is hardly big time exposure.
Darby, do you mind saying what you do for a living? It seems your
background must be varied to have insight into both linguistics and
physics. How about a profile of yourself.
Lola
[Edited by Lola Montez on 03-19-2001 at 11:30 AM]
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 11:28 AM
http://www.anomalies.net/time_traveler/
Pictures posted.
Posted by Randy Empey on 03-19-2001 11:49 AM
‘Darby’:
I’m not really saying your linguistic-phrenology, or whatever you call
it, has no validity — just that its validity is yet to field-proven
to the masses here, or at least myself.
Why don’t you share the specifics and your reasoning, as you share the results?
Where does your data come from, exactly.
What expertise do you draw upon?
Is this like Javier’s intuition — which would be perfectly fine,
as long as your honest about the source of your knowing, and don’t
expect us to believe you implicity with out a good ‘track record’.
Or is this some scientific method you’ve troubled yourself to learn
– which would also be perfectly fine, as long as you share your work,
if you expect to be believed.
Question to John:
Does this linguistic phrenology type ‘technology’ have a prominent existance (that you know of, of course) in your native time?
[Edited by Randy Empey on 03-19-2001 at 11:54 AM]
Posted by Albert Cattoir on 03-19-2001 01:00 PM
Here’s a couple of hyperlinks:
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/strings/links.htm
http://www.treasure-troves.com/physics/about.html
Computer: Security retina scan complete.
……..
Dr. Carol Markus: Project Genesis … A Proposal to the Federation
Spock: Carol Markus
Kirk
……YesDr. Carol Markus: Exactly what is Genesis? Put simply, Genesis is
life from lifelessness. It is a process whereby molecular structure is
reorganized at the subatomic level into life-generating matter of equal
mass.
……
Spock: It literally is Genesis.
Kirk: The power of creation!
……
Bones: Dear Lord, do you think we’re intelligent enough to, suppose, what if this thing was used where life already exist?
Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
Bones: This new matrix! Do you have any idea what you’re saying?
Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications,
Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to
destroy than to create.
Bones: Not any more! Now we can do both at the same time.
According to myth, the Earth was created in six days, now watch out,
here comes Genesis, we’ll do it for you in six minutes!
Spock: Really Doctor McCoy, …you must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests….
Bones: Logic?! My God, the man’s talking about Logic, we’re talking about Universal Armageddon! You green blooded, inhuman.
Bridge to Admiral Kirk: Admiral, sensors indicate a vessel in our area, closing fast.
Kirk: What do you make of her?
Bridge: Its one of ours, Admiral, its Reliant!
Spock: Reliant?
Kirk: Try the emergency channels…….Picture Mr. Sajvek.
Kahn: Slow to one half impulse power, lets be friends.
Movie: 1982, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-19-2001 01:26 PM
What’d that have to do with anything? Unless you were talking about the moral implications of time travel.
Linquistic phrenology.. I think it is a crock.
Tell you what my friend, since I haven’t written enough here,
please, feel free to use my web site as your model. There are
litterally gigabytes of my writing there. Articles, news, views,
op-ed… even a biography. But, it doesn’t tell all. I suggest though,
you not read the bio if you have any propriety regarding this so-called
ability to predict where people have been in their lives using their
words as a guide.
Posted by Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire on 03-19-2001 01:43 PM
Lola,
Some very brief notes on my background would contain reference to a
degree in Experimental Psychology (including psycholinguistics and
neuro-physiology). Psycholinguistics is the study of the psychology of
speech – phonetics (This is Noam Chomsky’s work). Professionally the
notes would include work in the intelligence community including
de-briefing.
Phrenology, the work of the German scholar Franz Joseph Gall (very
early 19th Century), is a word that has too many negative connotations
that have little to do with Herbert Spencer’s work in evolutionary
biology. It dredges up pictures of Gestapo “scientists” seeking out
Jews based on skull and facial knots, ridges and shapes or 19th Century
English detectives “identifying” criminals by similar methods.
Posted by Phil Fiord on 03-19-2001 01:51 PM
John is a White male of 38 years who may or may not be a time
traveller. He shows a well worked knowledge of Time based technology.
He claims to not be a scientist, and understands how his machine is
supposed to work.
By his own claim, he has more documentation, but chooses not to
share it. This makes sense to me, for if I were a TT, I would not give
out more than I chose to. In fact, here on the bbs, we each can simply
give just the details of what we want others to know. In subtle ways
John has given predictions and even 1 date that I came across. This
does not validate Johns status, but in the coming days to years we all
shall see.
In a nutshell, methods such as linguistic phrenology may have some
credit, but no evidence of how that ‘science’ was utilized in the ‘john
model’ has been given. That leads itself to be just as known as Johns
real status as a TT or not.
I suggest that those with the gutteral umph to do it, go back. Read
ALL of Johns statements. Put them together. Analyze what was written.
Not for Regional specificity, but for the small details that were
scattered about. If not read carefully, one might miss things stated.
Bash me if you like, but I am at a point were I sincerely HOPE John is
a TT. None of us can say yeah or nay really as a point of fact, and if
at this point John said, ” Oh, btw, I am just a fella from Little Rock
Arkansas “, can that really be absolved as true? Not really.
Fun Ain’t It?
Posted by Albert Cattoir on 03-19-2001 02:09 PM
Spock: Admiral, scanning an energy source on Reliant, a pattern I’ve never seen before.
Kirk’s Son, David: Its the Genesis Wave.
Kirk: What?
David: They’re on a build up to detonation.
Kirk: How soon?
David: We encoded four minutes.
Kirk: We’ll beam aboard and stop it.
David: You can’t.
Kirk: Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we’re all dead!
Uhara: No response, Admiral!
Kirk: Scotty, ….. Mr. Zulu, get up out of here, best possible speed.
……..
Bones: Are you out of your Vulcan mind! No human can tolerate the radiation that’s in there!
Spock: As you are so fond of observing, I am not human.
Bones: You’re not going in there!
Spock: Perhaps, you’re right. What is Mr. Scott’s condition? …… I’m
sorry, Doctor, I have no time to discuss this logically!
……..Remember!
Movie: Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-19-2001 05:45 PM
Anyone notice how quiet John has become in the recent days? It
happened just around the time Darby was commenting on his use of his
supposed 2036 language
.Just call’em how I see’em.
John you’ve done this Machiavellian routine so much, it’s predictable
now. Whenever anyone comments on anything you don’t know how to answer
or that might expose you, you go quiet and answer back in a few days.
And make the excuse of being busy archiving, when you do fine an answer
to it.
If that doesn’t spell fraud and opportunistic traits, then a lot of people are blind and can’t obverse the obvious.
-Javier C.
Posted by Anthony Reed on 03-19-2001 06:06 PM
Javier,
John said he would be leaving in the spring, that officially is
only 2 days away. If you were packing to go somewhere (time travel or
not) you have to get things ready don’t you?
And you are on the internet, there is no such thing as obvious.
A. Reed
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-19-2001 06:34 PM
Are you new here Anthony?
John said on March 10th, that he would be leaving in 30 days. That would make it about April 10th or 11th.
I will be leaving at around the same time, and may return in about a month or so
hehe.Posted by Kevin Spooner on 03-19-2001 06:44 PM
And now we know why the christ-force had to return three days after
bodily death. Maybe, just maybe he came back to his apostles not owing
to some predestined miracle, but because he was getting such a heavenly
headache…
And perhaps thereafter said to them “Listen here you sqaubling
bunch of know-it-alls, you-too Judas! Stop infighting amongst each
other about who’s right, who’s wrong, what your instinct or intellect
is telling you, just get out there. You’ve got all you need now to get
on with the job.”
Or maybe the christ force said, Hey! Is not cool dude. Watzup da
matter? Gotta cold ur sumtink? Getcha out mun! Catch ya de later!
Who, and I mean, WHO really really cares.
More the point, if I was JT the TT person, I would be thinking What
the H*LL – I’ve tried but right now I just don’t care. Off to catch my
broomstick and that’s all that matters right now.
Later (dude. hehe).
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-19-2001 06:56 PM
Javier,
Did John really say that?
((John said on March 10th, that he would be leaving in 30 days. That would make it about April 10th or 11th.)))
Hey! that is MY vacation week too! we could like all have a big party or something down there!!! heheheh
Posted by Tom Young on 03-19-2001 08:41 PM
Last week I was looking at the images that JT had uploaded onto MSN
and noticed a simple typo in the operations manual page showing a
diagram of the Tipler sinusoid field produced by his device where in
the diagram, item 10 (Negative Time Event Horizon) had been transposed
as item 11 in the diagram, though the item value was printed correctly
in the legend. I didn’t think anything of it until I looked at the same
page as found on Ricks site and saw that the typo was gone from the
page. I’m not trying to play pixel person or anything, but unexplained
edits to the images that have been posted do lead me to wonder what
other changes are being made. (Then again, a time machine might just
turn out to be a copywriters best friend!)
Posted by Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire on 03-19-2001 09:55 PM
Bob,
Really – its a lot more mundane than that (psychic ability). The
profile is truly based on what Boomer has written and posted. Its
statistics, analysis and interpretation.
Voice stress, handwriting analysis, non-verbal communication (body
language) isn’t part of this. Those criteria are generally used for
truth testing. I don’t have any interest in directly challenging
Boomer’s veracity. He and I are having fun with a battle of wits.
Cat-and-mouse rhetoric as it were.
I’m getting ready for the next round…
Major Boomer,
What was the elapsed time (indicated on your machine’s internal chronometer) for the trip back to 1975?
Posted by Emmett “Darby” Darbyshire on 03-19-2001 10:47 PM
Tom,
Good catch. We’ll make you a questioned documents tech yet.
Look even closer. Upper left hand corner legend: you can still see
the faint cut-and-paste edge outlined on the paper (not computer
cut-and-paste, literal scissors and glue cut-and-paste) and a finger
smudge where the ink ran onto the paper when the pasted section was
smoothed. Same-same for the center title – which is also warped.
Take a close look at the technical drawing. Look especially at the
left and right end perspectives. Not the same – very poor quality CAD
for a billion dollar project.
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-19-2001 11:03 PM
Hey Pamela, where’s your buddy Johnny? Can’t he come out and play?
Darby is calling for him too
. You go Darby.It’s not me this time John, so you’re going to have to try a whole new
approach. With that said, I am sure we are to expect something new from
you in about a day or so
.See you real soon
,Javier C.
P.S. Sure, where should we all take our vacation? Me, you, and John “I
wanna be a Time Traveler someday” Titor, wanna go off to?
Oh and John btw, I suggest you leave that piece of junk you made in your garage at home, cause I’ll break it if I see it
. Have a nice day.Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-19-2001 11:38 PM
Tom,
actually I noticed this difference and several others you have not
mentioned when I first saw the diagrams and questioned John about it
here is his response below from an email:
“If you take another look at the pages you can see that the first
one is much smaller too and there are two punch holes at the top of the
second one.
Since I was getting complaints about the quality of the picture I
decided to use the larger ones which are a compilation of the technical
drawings in a packet attached to the unit. The cut-a-way is also a bit
different from the unit I have as it shows the interior of the
prototype.
I haven’t looked closely at all the documents and I suppose there
may be other differences too. In fact, there is another version of the
same drawing in question which has a side profile on it and it’s not in
the manual either. I would imagine that may have been one of the
updates.
#5 still says cone. I hadn’t noticed the error in numbering before
and I’ve seen others in the manual but that’s pretty typical for a
military document.
If you would, do me a favor and post this if someone else cathes
that. Actually, this is quite intesting because I suppose if it were a
fraud it would be expected to be perfect. That’s fascinating and I
hadn’t thought about it before.”
sincerely,
Pamela
Javier, Where is John? probably P.A.C.K.I.N.G.
Posted by Albert Cattoir on 03-20-2001 03:04 AM
I am not a time traveler.
Can I apply a truth table to all this discussion?
What if I said that I might be able to?
What would that prove?
Some of the people would believe it, some people would not believe it, some people would not care.
That’s about it. That’s all that is happening anytime people get together to discuss anything from the past or the future.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário