Daryby: Let’s ‘jus ‘spose once again that its all true. Boomer is a
TT, a Major in the military (or former Major now under civilian
contract)of the
regional nation of Florida (or whatever that region is called)and
our government is the enemy state in the war to begin in 2004. Let’s
also ‘jus ‘spose that Rick really is a former Military/DoD
intelligence operative (and shooter)of that enemy state. Would Boomer,
a
trained field grade military officer allow Rick within 1000 miles
of his country’s device? If Rick turned out to be a “not-so-Ex” spook
and managed to snatch the device with a little help from his
friends what would prevent we, the enemy state, from returning the
machine to 2036 with a suitcase nuclear device onboard?
Excellent! That was, I suppose one of the main reasons I tried to
point out several things, including the fact that 1) he won’t let me be
“3rd party”
2) Anyone on this board might be a spook with just such a motive (though I SERIOUSLY doubt it).
Also Darby:Note for Rick: I agree with your earlier post that some
sloppy detail work on military hardware or manuals is common. PRC-25′s,
PRC-75′s and other common communications hardware are old and utilitarian and treated roughly.
Was sloppy workmanship and detailing on ICBM’s, LA class nuke
boats and nuclear devices also your experience? The machine and
manual wouldn’t be common grunt equipment that get humped in the
boonies and tossed into the hooch at night. Its two year old (in
2036) cutting edge strategic technology developed by GE and CERN
(cyclorton) and cost billions of dollars. Is it your experience that
that sort of hardware is treated with the same disdain as a field radio?
Right- Well, since I never dealt with ICBMs, LA Class nuke subs,
and other nuclear devices personally, I can’t answer that. The truth is
though, that all military manuals have errors, even on ships.
One last thing… along these lines: For the techno-military geeks: Have you
ever heard of an Air FOrce officer who took out an SR-71 Blackbird on a vacation trip -
NEVER.. which is the first reason I considered John a fraud but just never stated it.
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-23-2001 07:38 PM
Excellent critical thinking on that ex-military scenario Rick
.-J.C.
P.S. Anyone here a computer tech? I have a computer problem
.Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-23-2001 08:01 PM
Pam said: I have just received another picture from John to post.
I will send it to Rick Donaldson to post on his board.
It is titled “final proof?”
Hopefully he will post it soon.
As she stated, I have recieved said photograph and it is very, very
interesting. I find it almost funny in a way. But, before I tell you
about it, let me tell you something even funnier – as in “Strange”.
A few days ago, someone here on this list began to receive
unsolicited email claiming they were from the government. They have
threatened certain persons here as well. I have for the most part,
successfully discovered who that person is. He is from this list.
Tonight, shortly after Pamela posted her message about the “final proof”, my web site, and Anomalies.net went down…
One of two possibilities exists right now. The sites reside in
California and it is possible a power outage caused the site to go
offline. However, everything should have come back online after power
was restored. I’m checking that right now and ought to have an answer
sometime tomorrow morning.
The second possibility is there has been an attack on the site.
Something called a denial of service, if anyone knows what that is.
I’ve determined that INDEED there have been some “hits” on the machines
out there – but at this point, I haven’t confirmed it. I have people
who are going to check though. If I find out, and the IPs – correction,
the ISP matches the person who is sending out threatening letters… I
have a sneaky suspicion the ONLY person being visited by the FBI or
government agents will be the perpetrator.
Some how… some folks seem to forget those of us in computer
security have means at our disposal not normally assigned to the normal
internet crowd.
So – that said.. let me talk about the photograph since I can’t post it tonight.
The photo is a scan of a Florida Government document.
The exact gist of the document is regarding the fact that insurance
has run out on a specific vehicle and needs to be renewed or some other
action taken.
The name, and most of the vehicle information has been blanked for privacy-sake. But… the important part is the date.
The date is 03/26/01
That’s three days from today.
Unforntunately even for me, I find this to be no true explanation
for John Titor, Time Traveler. As a “true skeptic” (not of time travel,
but rather believing that John IS a time traveler) I realize that given
the fiasco of the Florida election process this past year, that Florida
of ALL places is suspect when it comes to government documents. It is
in all likelyhood a typographical error. But, all of you can be the
judge (assuming my site is back online tonight). Otherwise, I willget
the photo online as soon as humanly possible. Yesterday, if I had a
time machine.
Rick
Posted by Pamela Moore on 03-23-2001 09:03 PM
~when it begins to rain,
it is time to go rainbow gazing.~
-pamela
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-23-2001 09:12 PM
What’s the suppose to mean Pamela?
Let’s take a poll, who here has been contacted by someone claiming to be from the government?
I haven’t.
Obviously what would they want with a TimeTravelActivist
.[Edited by Javier Cortez on 03-23-2001 at 09:14 PM]
Posted by Lola Montez on 03-23-2001 10:17 PM
I haven’t.
Posted by Albert Cattoir on 03-23-2001 10:50 PM
I feel for John for having such a mixed-up youth, but even John
should realize certain thing. The Government probably is not interested
in his ‘time machine’. But you know politicians, they have probably
passed a law that John owes them some kind of tax for entering from a
different worldline, even if from the past or from the future. It is
probably already as law in this day and age. John, you will have to pay
your tax before you leave. They have no need to poke you with needles
or take your ‘time machine’, but they will be very determined to
collect their money. Why, heck, they do not even care if you pay with
future money; since the debt is so large, and it would not even be paid
off in the future of 2036. You would not want to leave small John with
such a debt, would you?
What do you think John?
Yes, Pam, I have seen ‘Contact’, a while back. I think I remember some of it, not that much of it though.
Tell John to pay his tax before he leaves.
You know this day and age and politicians.
Posted by Philip Mistlberger on 03-24-2001 02:20 AM
Such a grandly entertaining thread.
About two years back, on the old Art Bell BBS (which used to be
highlighted in that tiring blue, not this pleasant green), there was a
self-proclaimed time traveller (Marc “X”) who had everyone in a tizzy
for about a month or so. The thread racked up hundreds of posts, it was
often extremely funny, mostly for the interplay between several
posters, about 4 or 5 of whom were all named “Mark”.
The time-traveller, Marc X, claimed to be an anthropologist from
the 22nd century. Unfortunately, in his initial introductory post he
spelt “anthropologist” wrong several times. When this was duly pointed
out to him by one of the Marks, he defended himself by claiming that
English had morphed in the future, but that he would do his best to
adapt to our current patterns. This explanation became his most common
“out” when in hot spots.
Marc was not stupid, but I must say that John Titor has him beat
hands down. He not only has covered his bases quite well, he has
managed to disappear in a cloud of uncertainty that will at the worst
leave some wondering (though granted Darby seems to have stymied him in
the physics department).
Marc X made the error of returning from periods of absence in an
attempt to offer rebuttals to attacks on his claims, and to try to
dodge and justify and explain his way out of too many loopholes. In the
end he failed. He was finally exposed, as someone tracked him down (the
giveway being the “c” at the end of his first name, which made his
whole name actually uncommon) and located him as a college student in a
north mid-west university. But as a prankster he did a good job,
provided the most entertaining thread I ever recall seeing on this BBS
(outside of the “Oh My God” forum), and certainly stimulated many to
think.
I haven’t been able to read every post in this thread, so I’m not
sure if this has been mentioned. But John’s explanation of a “Russian
invasion” of the U.S. is strikingly reminiscent of an obscure 1984
science fiction film called “Red Dawn”, which dealt with just such a
theme. The idea seems so outlandish that I can only wonder if
“time-traveller John” didn’t see that movie — cheesie as it was.
[Edited by Philip Mistlberger on 03-24-2001 at 02:22 AM]
Posted by Barbara Clements on 03-24-2001 04:30 AM
Did anyone listen to Art’s show last night, he had a line open for
TT’s. Did any call in? I had to go to sleep as I get up at 5am to go to
work, so I wondered.
Posted by Mike Haley on 03-24-2001 05:26 AM
I am listening to the archive at the moment and am currently 2 hours
into it. Well, most of the calls have been people claiming to be the
Anti-Christ. Will the real Anti-Christ please stand up and smite the
false ones with pillars of fire?
Or, better yet, do so on the air. That would inspire some righteous ( or not-so-righteous ) fear.The few time travellers that called in really were not all that
spectacular. None of them convincing, in my opinion. Especially the one
that talked about time travelling vacations via pill, using nano-bots
to send the body back in time. Sounds a little too much like that show
“Time Trax”. Now, if someone were capable of time travelling into the
near future, say 30 minutes, then come back and, on the air, tell
everyone who would call and what they would say, then that would be
interesting.
Apparently, though, most time travellers come from 2008 and jump
back to 2001 for some reason. Why 2001 is beyond me ( of course, we’re
only 3 months into it ) when 4004 BC would be so much more interesting.
In my opinion, at least.
Posted by Randy Empey on 03-24-2001 07:33 AM
Philip M:
Why do you consider ‘Red Dawn’ an obscure science fiction film? Maybe
we’re not thinking the same movie, but your mention of the russian
factor is pretty telling. It might be speculative near-future, but it
is more patriotism-fiction or
guns-and-glory-feel-good-save-the-free-world than it is science fiction
– nothing futuristic is involved at all. The pickup truck the main
characters escape the opening scene in might be as old as the one Titor
says he carries his time machine around in.
ALL:
I think the line between observations, theories, dreams, past
expereinces and good stories are blurred by both the medium here and
the participants. So what? As long as ideas are exchanged, there is
some intelligent dissembly & assembly going on and expressed
possibilities are maximized, I think this kind of interchange is still
healthy.
Its long been my intuition that the facts and figures we struggle to
learn in school aren’t the actual useful lessons we learn in school –
its learning to learn, excercising our minds, that is the ultimate
benifit. It was my hope that simmular results could be gained in
threads of this type.
And it has, yet ….
Some of us have traveled so far, and gained so much in our ‘official’
educational journeys that its become a knee jerk reaction to shoot
‘impossible’ stories down. I bet amazing will power has been excercised
to keep said knee-jerks to a minimum, they have still had their effects
…
Of course, I error in the other direction, and that has its own
short comings … but, Javier, I am not being led of a cliff — If I
plunge into the sea of imagination it is of my own free will.
Critical thinking and analysis is needed and is doing good here,
but lets not let it stop us from seeing the rest of the forest here.
—-
Then again, I was always one of those boring kids who read the text
book (or whatever fiction I had brought from home) when the teacher
left the room … (unless I was enlisted by the trouble makers to plan
thier escape, but that is niether here nor there …)
So, throw your spit wads … make fun of the teacher’s baldness and
tie … prepare your rebbuttals of the establisment’s version of the
facts … there is something to be learned from such actions too — just lets stop letting our knee-jerk reactions kick each other around.
What does plausibility of a story have to do with the reality of events
indicated in said story? Its not a one to one relationship, I am sure
– is there enough correlation to back our claims of validity or
invalidity without reasonable doubts?
Posted by Lee Heggy on 03-24-2001 07:46 AM
Great observations Randy! Anyone can call themselves a time traveler
and be the catylst for lively discourse provided they do at least as
good a job of it as JT did.
Don’t get too hard on ‘Old Philip’. Talking pictures themselves were only rumors when he descended from the highlands of Tibet.
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-24-2001 08:08 AM
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22090
That news link might be very interesting to some who’ve been following some of the “predictions” here.
It covers a report about Jane’s news – regarding the new “Russian
Offensive”. With the expulsion of the 50-something-odd Russians who are
supposed to be spies… well, this comes as no surprise to me, but
welcome back to the Cold War of the 21st Century.
My web site is still down, but is likely due to power outages.
I will be starting a thread later today about something related to
this stuff in the hopes we can continues some important discussions,
and lacking the intellectual barbs. Just give me some time, because I
have to run through all of the several hundred posts again.
Rick
PS Javier… *I* wasn’t contacted either. But, instead of you
trying to figure it out, why don’t you back off on that subject. The
individuals who contacted me about it were upset and do not want to be
known, hence the reason for NOT posting their names to begin with. Me
thinks thou doth protest too much, so knock it off.
[Edited by Rick Donaldson on 03-24-2001 at 08:29 AM]
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-24-2001 10:26 AM
John has not been seen or heard from here in this public forum since
approximately page 40. Ten new pages, mostly barbs and personal attacks
have occured since then.
I have compiled all of the writing that has been done by John
Titor, alledged Time Traveler and will be going through it today for
“predictions”.
Let me explain.
John stated at one point he would not make any. In at least two
other places he mentioned his reasons, or morals for not doing so.
However… I find it very difficult myself to not make predictions.
Let’s make a rash assumption that any one of us could travel back
in time to, say 1979 and once there, we could answer any questions
presented to us by that population with whom we would interact.
At that point, people start asking you about the future. Though
your personal rules keep you from making “predictions”, they do not
stop you from answering well placed questions about yourself, the time
travel aspect, and even perhaps some vague history of yourself (Future
to everyone else).
Within that aspect, you will give answers regarding the future that
were either inadvertent or that you mistakenly considered “safe”.
I place before you the supposition that John Titor, Alledged Time
Traveler has done just so. In the thread I am about to open, we will
discuss his information. Sometime today, I will post my list of
possible predictions to a future Earth.
Join me there for this discussion… and let’s keep this one open
for the possibility John will post a good bye, or make an offer for me
to fly down for his departure. (I’m still open to doing so).
Rick
Posted by Javier Cortez on 03-24-2001 12:25 PM
Rick,
If I was still in the Military I may have to listen to you. But I’m
not, so I won’t. Plus how can I protest to much about this, when I only
mentioned it once?
Anyway’s, I just woke up from a very strange Time Travel Dream. It
was the year 2225, and it had to do with being a frozen cube. It was
very weird
.-J.C.
Posted by Rick Donaldson on 03-24-2001 03:53 PM
The following message was forwarded to me from an anonymous source.
I do not know why this person chose the venue he or she chose to attack
me – which was through an innocent individual, but I don’t like it one
bit.
This is apparently one of the folks claiming military connections and asking folks to shut up. Well..
I don’t like cowards. I don’t people telling me to shut up either.
If you want to talk to me, my email address is public. Feel free to
write. I certainly want to hear from you in person. Until then, suffice
it to say, I do not require ‘enlightenment’ from you or anyone else.
As far as whether or not “is he or isn’t he” this is a free country in
which I live so I am entitled to my opinion on this subject. I don’t
care if you wrote every manual in the US government. You’re way off
base attacking me, THROUGH someone else, and privately.
You’re a coward. Come out from hiding and admit who you really are
instead of using innocent go-betweens. You haven’t a clue what you’re
talking about when you refer to me. You also haven’t a clue what a
“future manual” might look like, no more than I have a clue about it.
You see… If John were from the future, and the items I’ve already
posted on another thread are even remotely true, the government as you
know it now, and publications standards ARE NOT what you think they
are. So… smart ass – either come out in public, or shut up.
In the mean time, answer me here – in Public. And before I hear any
bitching about “private email” remember this, you SENT IT TO ME THROUGH
A THIRD PARTY – therefore it is MINE TO DO WITH AS I WISH, and I wish
to release it to the public domain, right here on this board. Now… if
you want a private debate, write me privately. Until then, keep your
mouth shut and leave the middle people out of this.
My Comments below, are in Parens:
—– Original Message —–
From: <Name Blanked by Me>
To: <name Blanked by me>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Let’s help Rick out, shall we?
<Name Blanked by me>
Sigh. Sorry to trouble you again. Please do “Rick Donaldson” a favor and forward this text on to him.
Thanks.
—
Rick,
This is a private note to you. I trust that <Name Blanked by me> will keep it in confidence also.
(That person did… I chose not to)
Now, your claims of government service allowing you to be
knowledgeable about “tech pubs” – just what exposure did you have to
them? Was it a tech pub for swivel chair maintenance?
(Nope… my background is documented well, in several places, you apparently didn’t bother yourself to read them)
As a civilian who grew up an Army brat only to marry a spouse who spent
twenty years, combined, in the military and the private military
aerospace arena and during which time I went into the publishing world
where I ended up working on military technical publications for a
while, I find your lack of knowledge (and gullibility) striking. So
allow me to privately enlighten you.
(As a civilian huh? Funny… you’re in the “publishing world”. As a
matter of fact, so am I. As a matter of fact, I worry about many
THOUSANDS of documents. As a matter of FACT I’m neither gullible nor am
I lacking in knowledge. Nothing I’ve stated to this point on this BBS
is inaccurate in any sense of the word. Your insults from someone so
obviously “enlightened” trouble me though, since you obviously do not
belong in the job you’re in now, especially if you have a clearance…
tell me who you are so we can take care of that forthwith.)
Considering the subject at hand is purported to be such a high
level technical device which, by its very nature, would potentially put
lives in danger with each use (much like an aircraft), its manual
format WILL BE in compliance with the highest available mil-specs and
standards. Not only that, MULTIPLE MANUALS ARE CREATED by the military
contractor, for said device, in different actual physical sizes for
such technical devices covering many aspects of said devices – not just
one.
(WILL BE in compliance with WHOSE standards? Yours? Certainly not. You
obviously are from the year 2001. Funny how everyone wants to put their
standards on someone like John. I don’t believe John is a time traveler
any more than you apparently do, on the other hand… at least I’m open
minded enough to discuss the subject, something you’re afraid to do in
public. Your standards are for you, not for John. Get over it).
The private contractor who manufactured the device for the
militarywould be required to rigidly adhere to those specs and
standards for the accompanying technical publications as a requirement
and condition of having been awarded a contract for manufacturing such
a device…”lowest bidder” my ass. That has nothing in the world to do
with mil-spec compliance which the government takes very seriously. The
teams of degreed Engineers, Tech Writers, Drafts Persons, Graphic
Artists, CAD Operators, Computer Programmers, Word Processor Operators,
Technical Proofreaders et. al., responsible for putting these highly
complicated books together, who take their responsibilities very
seriously, thank you for your insulting remarks.
(Assuming the same ‘rigid standards’ exist in John’s time frame. The
truth is, these rigid standards are subject to changes locally on ALL
documentation, and errors ABOUND in them. I see them every day and I
KNOW FOR A FACT THEY EXIST WITH ERRORS. Please come down from your
perfect world and join the rest of us in reality. My so-called
insulting remarks are nothing compared to yours so far. I’m telling the
truth, you’re an example of someone in denial. As far as “lowest bidder
- my ass” goes.. well, the lowest bidder who got the contract does
follow whatever standards are in place at the time. However, the LOWEST
BIDDER STILL GETS THE CONTRACT – so, they are thereby just as limited
as anyone else, what with cost overruns, budget reductions to get rid
of extra people on a job so they can make a profit and so forth. So
don’t give me any crap about it being “mil spec” because the government
says so. I KNOW what the government requires, and I also know what gets
past the technical writers as well.)
A typical cover/title page for any such manual SHOULD, by mil-specs
and standards, resemble _something_ like this (see below), no two ways
around it.
(Should, again according to YOUR specifications. Not to those in John’s
“Time Frame”. I’m sorry but you’re putting yourself further and further
into a hole here. Remember – John is alledgely from 2036, a few years
AFTER a nuclear war. I’m certain – I’m POSTIVE that people after such a
thing are not going to adhere to YOUR standards simply because YOU say
so.)
For the technical publication itself (including cover/title page),
mil-spec requirements for everything (right down to the minimum card
stock quality) include:
Fonts to be used, font sizes (in the point system used by publishers),
text spacings, line spacings, margin widths, justifications (left,
center or right, depending), decimal point lineups, how “figures”
(illustrations, etc) are numbered and classified (not even present on
the “document” in question, oh by the way), requirements for numbering
of paragraphs (decimal system), page numbering system, character string
identifiers required to be present at the bottom of each and every page
(not even present on the “document” in question, oh by the way)…
…and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, AND ON, AD NAUSEUM
are laid out in NUMEROUS SEPARATE GOVERNMENT MANUALS written
specifically for contractors ON HOW TO WRITE THE TECH PUB that would
have you going blind and pulling your hair out before you have read and
learned it all.
(Technical manuals and technical orders are already difficult to read,
they are so blasted difficult for the guys in the field they don’t even
use them. Truth be told, if I had to take out a manual to repair a
radio, by following the instructions therein, I would not get it
repaired. I set them aside and use my talents for troubleshooting
before I would read one of YOUR technical manuals. ANYONE who has EVER
used an Air Force Technical Order knows PRECISELY what I am talking
about! So get off your high horse.)
Not to mention the fact that tech pubs are ALWAYS in a binder
system to accommodate the insertion of the inevitable revisions and
changes, and replacement of damaged pages. Where are the page holes if
the pages were removed for copying?
(You’re right, they are in binder systems. IF they are technical
orders. However, guess what? The Army from 1932 through 1960-something
published manuals in BOOKS. They weren’t in binders. Guess what? They
have started doing so again. Only the Air Force has a standard binder.
Inevitable revisions and changes… you mean – AD NAUSEUM again, don’t
you? If there are prefect manuals out there, then why the hell are
there so many changes all the time? Think about it… perfect manuals
mean there should never be corrections – which is what almost EVERY
SINGLE PAGE I’VE EVER FILED IN AN EXISTING MANUAL ARE THERE FOR!
CORRECTIONS TO MISTAKES FOUND BY THE GUYS IN THE FIELD!!!!!!!!)
That cover page and content “evidence” for the “time machine” looks
like it’s from a high school book report! It’s not even close to being
in mil-spec compliance in any way shape or form. Dear God, when you go
to work on Monday, lay your hands on a real technical publication – if
you have the clearance to do so – and look at it. Examine the format
carefully. How it’s assembled. Notice the character string identifiers
all over the place, etc., etc., etc.
( I never said it WAS A TIME MACHINE MANUAL. I never said it was in
compliance with mil-spec either. I said I had experts looking at it. MY
EXPERTS have since been appraised of this entire forum and are reading
it. THEY tell me that not only is is POSSIBLE but ” … who knows what
the technical standards for the future might be? I <the guy
answering me> do not know one way or another, but my opinion is it
isn’t a time machine and isn’t a real manual.” Happy??? I don’t know
what your problem is, but I’ve got as many, if not MORE resources to
ask about this stuff as you do. So back off. By the way.. you AND my
folks only have a couple of pages, not the original manual. I defy ALL
of you to make an accurate determination from a PHOTOCOPY that was THEN
SCANNED into the computer on binding, or anything else! Not only can
you NOT decide it isn’t real, you can NOT DECIDE IT IS REAL.)
If you REALLY knew what the technical publications looked like for
a high level device (system), you most certainly would have tossed this
ridiculous “is he or isn’t he” speculation out the window, oh, about 2
seconds after viewing the “time machine” pages, like I did.
(No, I wouldn’t have done such a thing. Again, you’re applying whatever
mediocre standards of yourself to me. The difference between me and you
is an open mind. Yours is obviously closed and you suffer a severe case
of denial. I’m sorry for your security clearance, but when reality sets
in, you will be safely out of the system and away from any government
sites. Your most obvious problem is an ego the size of Seattle. Perhaps
you need an Ego-quake to put you in your place.)
Good Luck.
TYPICAL STYLE FOR TECH PUB COVER/TITLE PAGE
INCLUDING VARYING FONT SIZES: 24, 18, 14 & 8 POINT:
___________________________________________________
“SECURITY CLASSIFICATION”
XX-XXX-XX-X (PUB # HERE)
__________________________
VOLUME #/PART # REVISION#
TECHNICAL MANUAL
(TYPE OF PUB HERE – MAINTENANCE,
OPERATION, ETC.)
(NOMENCLATURE OF EQUIPMENT HERE)
(SUBTITLE HERE)
(NAME OF MANUFACTURER OF EQUIPMENT, AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACT NUMBER HERE)
***
(INSERT APPROX. 2-INCH SIZE “BRANCH OF SERVICE” SEAL HERE)
***
(SUPERCEDURE NOTICE HERE)
(SUPPLEMENT NOTICE HERE)
(DISCLOSURE NOTICE HERE)
(DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS HERE)
_____________________________________________
(This is indeed similar to SOME manuals the government uses, but,
it isn’t similar at ALL to some that we use today. Matter of fact, I
have several non-standard manuals that more conform to John’s manual
than to yours, but they are all classified and I can’t even SHOW YOU
the format. So put that in your pipe and smoke it with whatever else
you’re already smoking.)
[Edited by Rick Donaldson on 03-24-2001 at 04:07 PM]
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário