A Short Interview with Temporal Recon

Below, I answer some questions about my experiences with the John Titor story.  
I provide them here as a permanent and complete record as well as to hopefully move people to think about the possibility of time travel in a new direction.
Enjoy:
I guess my first question would just be how you got interested in the whole John Titor thing? Where did you first hear about it? What drew you to it?
 Before delving into your first question, I am happy to discuss nearly anything regarding the topic.  As you might imagine though, there will be certain red-lines that I place for myself.  These red lines are in place to protect
1)  Myself
2)  Others currently living here now and
3)  My own investigation into the larger question of TT. 
  I am sure you will understand my stance in this regard.  Feel free to ask anything you like.  I’ll tap the brakes if I feel a certain question would be detrimental to any of the above three constraints.
  
   I honestly cannot remember the very first time I heard of the John Titor story.  Trust me, in recent months, I have been racking my brain trying to remember.  But, suffice it to say, I likely heard about it as it was going on in 2000.  I do have the vaguest of memories of someone mentioning it to me that there was a man “on the internet” that was claiming to be from the future, but I can’t really remember any more detail than that.  Well, no more detail other than the fact that I completely disregarded any claims of time travel at the time, anyhow.
   If I were a historian, and from my current perspective, I would call the state of the Internet in 2000 as the “tail end of the early days.”  Granted, from a larger perspective, we may yet still be in the “early days” of the Internet!  Just imagine what the Internet will look like with speeds of 100 Gigabits/sec.
   But because the Internet was so new in 2000, really only a few years old at the time, it wasn’t the go-to source of information it is now in 2013.  As a point of comparison: today, one can find literally any perspective on any topic conceivable from a wide variety of sources;  sources as “trustworthy” as the legacy media outlets or as outlandish as….well, take your pick. 
   But in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, it was definitely not that way.  In my humble opinion, I would say the Internet didn’t come into its own until maybe 2003 or 2004 where it began to really resemble what we see today.  Not so in 2000.
   In 2000, I can specifically remember people saying that you couldn’t believe anything that was on the Internet.  Why?  Because anybody could post anything online.  There was no control.  Truly incredible the way we thought back then; how tightly we clung to the gilded cage of “controlled” access to information. 
   And please don’t misapprehend me.  I was just as caught up in this illusion of perfect and complete information as anyone else.  I really thought that because I watched the nightly news, I was informed.  So when somebody mentioned to me that there was a man online claiming to be from our future, as you might imagine, I dismissed it.  I believe, maybe in the years that followed, I might have looked into it once or twice, but when faced with the sheer volume of posts (from Titor and others) that I would have to wade through, I simply wasn’t prepared to put that kind of work into trying to pull out a cheap prediction or two.  A prediction that likely would be as vague or inaccurate as any that Nostradamus would give.  So, again, I dismissed it.
   But age has a way of instilling patience and perseverance.  So, sometime in late summer of 2009, I remember watching the news one night and some talking head was discussing the loss of liberty, personal freedoms etc.  It was then that I was again reminded of somebody, years ago, that had made a prediction about how the US was going to go through a period of diminished freedoms, something about a second Civil War, rebirth…what was his name?  John something?  Oh, I remember now:  John Titor.
   So, with my girlfriend sitting beside me watching television, I quietly began searching for the posts of a man who claimed to be from 2036.  [It had] been nearly 10 years since he posted and what I’m [was] currently seeing [did] seem to parallel what I remembered of Titor’s topics of discussion.  Maybe in 10 years, some of his predictions might have come true?  As you may already know, that question was answered, immediately, and in spades.
   I can honestly say that until that time (as far as I can remember), I had never considered the possibility that time travel was anything more than a topic in science fiction.  After all, wasn’t it already proven that time travel is impossible?  That damnable Conventional Wisdom will get you every time.
   As I looked deeper into the Titor story, my previous certainty slowly gave way to a, “uh-oh, wait a minute…” perspective.  I would have to say that the more I discovered, the more evidence that piled up.  The more evidence that piled up, the deeper I dug.  Early success plus curiosity only breeds more of the same. 
   How could I be the only one discovering this??  Surely others have found the same things I did, right?  Wrong.  And, as it happens, this should have been expected.  The reason was because we are specifically talking about time travel and predictions.  How could anyone make any conclusion (either pro or con) if none of the predictions happened yet?  It actually took a full 10 years of events to culminate in the arguments and evidence that I presented in COATT.  Is that by design?  One wonders.  The topic obviously gets a bit more complicated at this point.
   I would say that, in my short time looking into the John Titor story initially, I have since moved beyond the initial posts and, armed with a new understanding of the universe we live in, I am now in search of a larger truth, a truth beyond the posts from 2000.
As far as JT goes then, you believe he was an actual time traveler? As opposed to, say, a hoaxster that was just trolling the Internet back in the day?
   
   No belief required, Rick.  There is plenty of evidence out there.  The purpose of evidence is to transport us from belief to certainty. 
   One of the keys to cracking the Titor question is to first just allow for the possibility that time travel very well could be true.  Many never even get off the ground in their research due to this very limiting world view: they simply don’t believe that the human race will ever conquer time.  Ever is a very long time, Rick.
“There are more things in 
Heaven and Earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.“
– Hamlet (1.5.166-7)
   Another key is to be willing to accept contradictory information.  It will not all be spelled out for you and you must be willing to accept that you don’t have as solid a lock on the world and universe as you thought you did.  You must be willing to be wrong.  My research, for me, has been nothing if not a constant reassessment of what I thought I knew.
   Soon, as you delve into this, if you are truly honest with yourself (you don’t have to convince anyone but yourself), you will begin to notice small details, I call them “Kilroys” that are markers of truth, that time travel does exist and that a person using the name “John Titor” was merely one example of a man making use of that technology.  There are others.
So I was wondering — if you could get into it — some of the proof of why you believe the person posting as Titor is actually from the future?
  This is a much larger question than you may now realize, Rick, which is completely understandable at this early stage.
  First we must come to terms with our terms.  You ask for the “proof” that I rely on to categorically state that time travel is real and that John Titor was a man using that technology.  I posit that there is no such thing as objective proof (not to be confused with objective truth), there is only evidence and I open Conviction of a Time Traveler making that point.  
   Evidence is what we use to “build a case” and establish proof.  We must build the proof ourselves from the bricks of evidence.  As is likely obvious to you now, this is how the book obtained its title.  
  Also, we must rethink our assumptions on what we accept as evidence.  Is a failed prediction really evidence that Titor was a hoaxer?  Putting it another way, exactly what obligation does John Titor have to any of us to tell us the truth about anything, or any time traveler, for that matter?
  If his statements could possibly be less than completely true, then is it possible that the posts served another purpose?  Something more subtle than simply an insomniac time traveler posting on forums telling us of our doomsday future?
  
  In light of this, I would put to you and your readers that a failed prediction does not carry the same weight as a correct prediction.  They are not equal.
  In answer to your question, to be honest, I am averse to simply provide the evidence in a nice concise list.  This is not to sell one more book, trust me.  It is because each of these pieces of evidence comprises a larger whole.  Any one piece can just be a coincidental event!  But altogether?  At a certain point, an intellectually honest person has to start asking himself, can this all really just be a coincidence, simultaneously?   
How many coincidences comprise a fact? 
    There are some out there who found some of the points I describe in COATT well before I ever came on the scene.  When they presented their bits of information to the John Titor “experts,” they were summarily debunked as “coincidence,”  “easily guessed” or that Titor was privy to “insider information.”  This happened in every instance I found, and there’s 13 years now of history to show this to be true.  
   Well, coincidence and “easily guessed” are subjective judgments, they are not empirical.  And, as of this writing, no evidence has ever been provided for any claim of insider information made to explain away Titor’s foreknowledge of events.  None.  Quite a coincidence, wouldn’t you say?  This makes one wonder:  
Just how expert are these so-called experts, anyway?
   I had the lucky position of being able to see this happen to others before me.  As such I chose to not play a game on a game board owned by people not truly interested in the actual truth.  I would not divulge my information in such a piecemeal fashion as so many others before had done (and failed).  
   Over time, I discovered that time travel is simply just more likely to be true than any of the flimsy arguments invented to debunk it.  It then, literally, took me three hundred pages to make the case.
   But, in the interest of bread and circuses, I don’t mind giving your readers a little something to chew on and there are two that stand out to me as among the strongest (from the Titor posts that is):
1)     John’s correct description of what the Segway was a full year before it was publicly unveiled and
2)     John’s prediction of the Optical Frequency Comb some three or four years before its inventors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.
 This is by no means all of the data, there is a great deal more, and a great deal of which was only discovered after I published Conviction of a Time Traveler.  Some may find it interesting to know that I am working on an update which will include the majority of this new information.  Questions such as those below are explored and largely answered:
How is the time travel program managed over centuries? 
How do time travelers communicate over centuries?
Is the 60 year limit really a limitation?
Just how far back have they gone, really?
Are they really from 2036?
I’ve been through the material a bit and, like you said, a lot of the predictions don’t seem to pan out
   I understand your position here, though I didn’t say that “a lot of predictions didn’t seem to pan out.”  I’m sorry if that came through somehow in my previous email.  
   Nonetheless, many have made the same statement.  I would kindly recommend you rethink your position in this regard.  Specifically, I count exactly two “predictions” that did not “pan out” and not the “many” that is oft-quoted online.  They are:

“There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005.”
and
“there were no official Olympics after 2004.”


   Two is a far cry from “many,” wouldn’t you say?  That damn Conventional Wisdom again…
   Additionally, there are many predications that John made that were not presented as predictions that DID in fact come true.  Don’t you find it interesting that the only predictions he made that did not come true are tied to specific dates whereas the general statements he made, statements that were predictions, but simply not presented as such, did come true?
My other question is, I’m guessing you’ve put in hundreds and hundreds of hours into researching this, right? Can you maybe give me a ballpark number of how long you think you’ve been working on this?
  Before you said it, I hadn’t really thought about how much time I spend researching this. It is merely a topic of thought during the day or idle moments at night.  
   Though I think the idea or assumption that I am some sort of professorial researcher hidden behind stacks of dusty books on a cluttered mahogony desk as I feverishly run down the latest tidbit of information is a bit off the mark.  It might be fun to think of it in that way and probably what most of us imagine ala Indiana Jones or the DaVinci Code books.  But it isn’t really the case.  
   One could ask how many hours one spends on a hobby?  Cooking?  Driving?  Watching TV?  How much time is too much or too little when thinking about our place in the universe?  Is there no room in our busy lives to ask the truly large questions?
   
   But to answer your question more directly, I have only been looking into this since late 2009.  It is no end of wonder to me how far I’ve come, how much my perspective has changed and so rapidly.  
   Has nobody else put together what I’ve discovered?  Is there nobody else?
I hope this answered your question
Temporal Recon

Did Newton’s Apple Lead Him to the Wrong Conclusion?

  In 2000, a man using the name “John Titor” claimed to be a time traveler from the year 2036.  He described that he was able to achieve this feat by manipulation of gravity in a very specific way.  
    Now, everyone knows the story of how the idea of “gravity” came to Newton by observing an apple fall from a tree.  Isaac Newton’s Principia was published in the early 1600’s and has stood the test of time (so to speak) ever since.  
   What is truly interesting regarding these laws of motion is that they are laws.  They are universally accepted…unquestioned.
   Is it time to revisit these laws that we take for granted?  Are we going to assume that gravity is so simple of a concept with no other aspects to it, that it could be completely described in the 1600’s?  Is there truly nothing left to discover about gravity?
  Turning to John Titor’s machine, let’s assume he was truthful in his description that time travel is done with the manipulation of one of the fundamental forces of the universe: gravity (this universe, at any rate).  As any scientist will tell you,  any number of side effects and ancillary discoveries usually take place in any field of endeavor.  So, naturally, it stands to reason that during the development of the precursor technology that led to time travel (as described in Conviction of a Time Traveler) must have made ancillary discoveries along the way.  You can’t just start monkeying around with the forces of the universe and discover something new that you didn’t know before you started…
  What discoveries were made about gravity itself during the development of the technology?  
  Is it possible that we have a fundamental misunderstanding of gravity itself?  Is it possible that for the last 400 years, we have been operating under a false premise?  Are we only now discovering that Newton, for all of his genius, might have been wrong? 
  Of course, he couldn’t possibly have known the true nature of gravity, if Dr. Verlinde in the below article is correct.  He simply didn’t have the full body of knowledge available to him that our current scientists do.  Nor did he have access to super computers and the rest.  Hell, the man had no knowledge of electricity!  
   Maybe we should allow for the possibility that scientists from the Renaissance might not have had all the answers?

 Many people have heard the story of when Newton sat under an apple tree to think, and suddenly an apple fell on his head and he conceived the theory of gravity. But after a long time, physicists knew gravity was a very strange physical law. Compared to other basic interaction forces, gravity was very difficult to deal with. Now the reasons for this peculiarity may have been explained: gravity is not a fundamental interaction force, but instead may be the derivative of another more fundamental power.
Dr. Eric Verlinde
Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, his contention is that gravity is an illusion that has caused continued turmoil among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it.
“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde. It’s not that the Apple won’t fall to the ground, but Dr. Verlinde, along with some other physicists, thinks that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or how elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.
The core of the theory may be relevant to the lack of order in physical systems. His argument is something you could call the “bad hair day” theory of gravity. It goes like this: your hair frizzles in the heat and humidity because there are more ways for your hair to be curled than to be straight, and nature likes options. So it takes a force to pull hair straight and eliminate nature’s options. Forget curved space or the spooky attraction described by Isaac Newton’s equations. Dr. Verlinde postulates that the force we call gravity is simply a by-product of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder.
Professor Verlinde’s theory is that gravity is essentially an entropic force. An object moving around other small objects will change the disorder surrounding the objects and gravity will be felt. Based on this idea in the Holographic theory, he can derive Newton’s second law of mechanics. In addition, his theory on the physics of inertial mass is also a new understanding. 
Research on the universe in modern science is essentially based on the theory of gravity. If gravity does not exist, then our understanding of the galaxy and the universe’s structure could be wrong. This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations. A new theory of gravity could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues that physicists come across, like dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together. It may stimulate scientists to seek a new understanding of the universe.
“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”
Article originally appeared on Pure Insight. Read the original Chinese here.

*Republished with permission from The Epoch Times
Dr. Verlinde’s website:  http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/

Remember The Maine!

<!–[if !mso]>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>

 I went to go see the movie “Olympus Has Fallen” this weekend at my local movie theatre.  To be completely truthful, I had no intention of ever seeing this movie as I am instinctually reticent to subject myself to what could be a propagandistic film.  But a friend and his wife, whom I had not seen in some weeks, had invited me to go with them and in the spirit of maintaining a good friendship, I went. 

            To be certain, my guard was up.  In this day and age, it would be incredibly naïve of me to believe that any work with the White House as a central theme and prop would not be used as some sort of informational bludgeon.  I was not disappointed (so to speak).  

 
            Before I go into the details that I myself noticed, a little background might be in order and a few statements of the obvious.  So many of us watch movies that the very mechanical ways of making movies are lost on us.  That is to say that, the very act of sitting down and watching a movie or television program is an exercise in suspending critical thinking, by definition.  With our critical thinking suspended, we are now allowing any idea proffered by the movie maker or script writer into our inner space, our mind.  
It must bear repeating that every story we watch on the movie screen, every scene, every explosion, every word uttered, is a purposeful choice.  Whether that purpose is to create a sense of drama or comedy, it was a conscious choice by the writer or director to include (or exclude) it in the final product.  Everything you see on the screen represents a choice by the film maker.  Everything. 
Another interesting example of that many of us see on a daily basis is the strange coincidence of what we see on television and what is later coming out in theatres.  You can rest assured that if you are watching Die Hard XXII on the TBS channel, that a new Bruce Willis movie will be in the theatres very soon.  This is not coincidence.  It has gotten to the point now where entertainment itself has become an advertisement for yet moreentertainment, which in turn is still just another form of advertisement.  
The film maker has an incredible opportunity to tell a story.  He can do this overtly with explosions and car chases, or covertly and “between the lines.”  It is this “between the lines” message that the film maker can also leverage his craft to get people to think in certain ways or about certain things.  Done right, I actually can admire a film maker when he is able to speak on two different levels.  That, in my mind, is the very act of being a thinking artist.  There are numerous examples of this, and my two favorites come from the same film making duo:  The Wachowskis.
If you’ll remember it was the Wachowskis who gave us the Matrix trilogy as well as Cloud Atlas.  Personally, I feel that Cloud Atlas was quite possibly one of the greatest films ever made, and yet the films deeper meaning was lost on a great many people, which was unfortunate.  The Matrix also has the same subtext ideas embedded within it that Cloud Atlas did and was also similarly lost on the general public.  The fact that both of these films were made by the same film makers only reinforces this idea of subtext.  I will not go into a complete deconstruction of the Matrix movies (primary among them, the first in the trilogy), as many books and essays have already been written in this regard.  But Cloud Atlas on the other hand gives the exact same message as the Matrix but so subtly that it is missed, at least on a conscious level.
Cloud Atlas and, to a more overt extent, the Matrix, both deal with the idea of “Control.”  In the Matrix, this idea of “Control” is represented by the very Matrix itself with the machines as our overlords, hidden from our everyday view.  It would appear that the message found “between the lines” of the Matrix is that, while you may think you are free, you are not.  There are many levers of control that restrict your freedom in such an insidious fashion, that you are not even consciously aware that you are a prisoner.  (Some may argue that the Wachowski’s lost their way and strayed from this artistic achievement in the subsequent sequels in the trilogy, but I will forgive them this minor transgression in light of their success in getting the Matrix, complete with its internal and mildly hidden purpose, made in the first place.)
Cloud Atlas, on the other hand, is much more subtle in its depiction of “control.”  Specifically, Cloud Atlas is a series of stories from different points in time that are interwoven and stitched together.  They follow a variety of characters (played by the same actors) in what appears to follow their soul’s journey through the ages.  One story is set in the late 1800’s, another in the 1970’s another in the future and yet another in an even further, more distant future.
In order to avoid any accusations of spoiling the movie, I will refrain from giving any details of these individual stories themselves, but I will speak on the movie’s larger context.  In every one of these stories’ plots, without exception, there is some method of control in place that restricts the characters’ free will or desires.  Theseare the levers of control that the Wachowskis are attempting to draw our attention to.  The purpose of Cloud Atlas is not necessarily the telling of an expansive story of a soul’s experiences while on Earth as some might have you believe.
Rather the story of Cloud Atlas is used as a vehicle for a truth, a message.  But it is hidden and between the lines:  “You are not free, and you never were.  The levers of control, whatever form they take, have been in place for a very long time.”  Interestingly, it is this message that the Wachowskis attempted to give with their movie, The Matrix, as well.  
The purpose of all this background is to illustrate that film makers can use their unique medium to not only tell an overt story of good guys vs. bad guys, but also to provide a semi hidden message to those “with eyes to see” or perhaps even affect the movie going public on a subconscious level, which brings me back to “Olympus Has Fallen.”
As I stated earlier, when I went to see this movie, with its very overt flag waving and prominence of the White House as symbol and prop, my guard was up.  I was wary and attentive to the fact that the message that the film makers intended was one that I would not accept, wanted to hear or even agree with.  And, also as I said, I was not disappointed.
Spoiler Alert – If you continue reading beyond this point, I cannot guarantee the movie will not be spoiled for you.  I highly recommend you do continue reading so that, in the event you do go see “Olympus Has Fallen,” you will be on the lookout for the same things I saw.  Similarly, if you see something I missed, I welcome your comments below.  Please  tell me what I missed.
As the movie progresses, the sitting president (played by Aaron Eckhart) and vice president are captured within the White House.  As a result, the Speaker of the House (played by Morgan Freeman) and assisted by the Secret Service Director (played by Angela Basset) attempt to rescue the President and stop nuclear annihilation by North Korean “terrorists.”  They are assisted in their rescue operation by a Secret Service Agent (played by Gerard Butler) who is able to get inside the compromised White House and kill all the bad guys.
On the surface, this is your typical movie with your typical generic bad guys and good guys.  On the surface this movie recycles such old and tired clichés and formulas that I was a little embarrassed by the reaction of the people in the theatre with me as they actually applauded when the good guy killed the bad guy in the end.  Don’t they realize what really just happened? 
But below the surface, is it possible that there is something more to this movie than just your typical Die Hard formula?  I believe there is. 
At the risk of sounding like I see burglars under every bed, please indulge me in pointing out some very peculiar coincidences.  First, I’ll start with the very obvious:  Does anyone else here notice the very obvious parallels between President Barack Obama and Valerie Jarret with the two main characters in the film?
Is this merely coincidence?  Perhaps.  Remember, everything you see on the screen is a choice that was made by the film makers.  This includes everything from the clothing to the hair styles.  But let’s move on. 
I will continue by asking a question:  What comparison with which historical figure has Obama and his handlers attempted to foster since he was a candidate? 
Abraham Lincoln.
Even without the obvious references to Lincoln that John Titor pointed out 13 years ago and which I document in Conviction of a Time Traveler, even I was surprised at how heavy handed the film makers were in their attempt to actually continue with this comparison.  For those who have seen the movie already, if you will remember, Gerard Butler, after he gets into the White House, kills a bad guy by smashing his head with the bust of none other than….Abraham Lincoln.  Gerard Butler’s character could have dispatched the bad guy in any number of ways: gun, knife, kick, punch, fall, explosion, anything.  But he chose a bust of Lincoln.  This was a conscious choice made, not by the actor or character, but by the writer and director.
This is, in my humble estimation, an attempt to insinuate Obama’s presence into the movie.  
But it doesn’t stop there.  Again, for those who have seen the movie already, do you happen to remember in which bedroom Gerard Butler evades getting shot up by the bad guys by using a secret door?  That’s right, it was the LincolnBedroom.
Now I will readily admit that only one of these examples might likely have been mere coincidence.  But in the aggregate, the implications are hard to avoid.  There may be other examples that I missed, and as I said, I welcome others’ input here.  The symbolism is definitely hard to miss.
Returning to the idea that every act, every scene, every word is purposeful, are we really to believe that these choices by the film maker and/or writer were accidental?  Are we to ignore the White House’s historical use of mass media to foster an idea?  
Remember the Maine!
And must we acknowledge the elephant in the room?  Are we to believe that the fact that the bad guys in this movie are North Koreans is just another coincidence to what we are experiencing in the real world now?  Considering that, if a movie were to go straight from screenplay to in the theatres, a minimum of one year’s work must transpire.  In the hopes that my readers here are smart enough to see the implications with this, I will avoid speaking it aloud.  Nonetheless, I believe you will likely take my meaning in what this implies.
I believe it was the newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst, who once said,
“I can’t tell you what to think, but I can tell you what to think about.
Is this an example of just this strategy?

In Saul Alinsky’s “12 Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky’s rule number four appears to have a corollary here that appears to be in use in “Olympus has Fallen.”  The movie both begins and ends with extreme closeups of the American flag falling to the ground in an attempt to elicit feelings of patriotism in the audience.  Rule Number Four states:  “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”  The movie’s insistence on this patriotism is an indirect application of this rule.  Stated another way, the movie is attempting to begin the dialogue (such as it is) within the movie in terms the movie goer will understand on a visceral and emotional level; and that is:  United States = Good.  Or also, that the antagonists in the movie (North Korea) are attacking that patriotic ideal which was so glaringly put on display at the beginning and end of the movie.

Keep your wits about you, don’t panic and get ready.  It’s going to get bumpy.