John Titor (AKA the internet time travel guy) spooks me.

[iwearnosox]

2004, the year of John Titor?

I'm a skeptic all the way, but this post of 2/8/01 spooks me, did he predict the space shuttle explosion? :Q

---------------------------------------------
John Titor
Member

Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 78
I would characterize world politics as two boxers who have just gone multiple rounds and they?re both pretty beat up. I?m sure someone out there wants to kill us but no one is very organized yet. There is a great deal of fear over rogue groups coming across un-launched missile systems, 55 gallon drums of Anthrax or portable nuclear weapons.

((Korea United?))
I guess you could say that. Taiwan, Japan and Korea were all ?forcefully annexed? before N Day.

I don?t remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez.

From my viewpoint, yes, this is an alternate timeline. From your viewpoint, no.

I have thought again about how to revel information that would make me more believable but I always come across the following problems:

1.All of you become much less interesting as sheep. I can?t talk to you if you?re not skeptical.

2.Anything I say could be acted on beforehand and changed anyway.

3.All the really interesting information is months or years away and I?d be gone when it happens.

4.I find it morally wrong to assist someone with anything where they might gain and someone else would lose or die.

5.There?s a slim chance your worldline is just different enough my ?prediction? won?t happen.

6.I simply don?t know.

Consider that you are a time traveler who goes back in time to the first week of February 1970 and you are confronted with the same problem. What do you remember right now about the second week of February 1970? Naturally, the conflict in Vietnam and the Middle East come up but as someone has already stated here, ?that?s old news?. I suppose I could predict the failure of Apollo 13 spacecraft but since time travel is ridiculous, I would be blamed for sabotage. I might even decide to tell you about an earthquake in Peru but then people that would have died by chance will now live and vice versa.

All I can think of is to make something up. So here goes?. The space shuttle mission may or may not have a problem connecting the new lab to the space station.

How was that?

 

[beer]

You are such a tool. Better watch out for the black helicopters too.

 

[Looney]

Um, if i made a hundred predictions, i would probably get one or two right.

Besides, the space shuttle accident had NOTHING to do with the space station connecting. It happened at re-entry.

 

[beer]

You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

The Men in Black are on their way to your house now to erase your memory.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

DP

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

Maybe you can't read... but it says "The space shuttle mission may or may not have a problem connecting the new lab to the space station."

First off, he's not very explicit.. may or may not? Second, the problem was not connecting the new lab to the space station. I guess you're not to detailed on current affairs?

 

[iwearnosox]

Without using google quickly tell me what the mission of the first shuttle to explode was. I certainly don't know, so I'm willing to provide a little latitude. He mentions a lab on board which was true, and the experiments it contained was for space station research.

Having said that I'm not proclaiming it a true prediction, but I do find it creepy.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

IIRC, they(NASA) knew there was a problem after they started but they couldn't fix the problem because they didn't have the equipment to dock to the space station, hence, fix the problem/save the people.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

There are 3 John Titor threads already non-archived, and two more archived, including one with 140 posts. This has been beaten to death repeatedly.

And yes, I think you are a tool. FIrst of all, he is never specific in any of his 'predictions.' Second of all, that Columbia breakup had nothing to do with connecting parts to the ISS - I don't even think it carried any parts to the ISS at all (but I could be wrong on that second fact)

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Sifl
Without using google quickly tell me what the mission of the first shuttle to explode was. I certainly don't know, so I'm willing to provide a little latitude.

O-rings on the first shuttle caused it to explode. It was just a basic flight into space, but with a teacher.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Sifl
Without using google quickly tell me what the mission of the first shuttle to explode was. I certainly don't know, so I'm willing to provide a little latitude.

O-rings on the first shuttle caused it to explode. It was just a basic flight into space, but with a teacher.

I didn't ask why it exploded, and it certainly had mission related experiments on it.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

IIRC, they(NASA) knew there was a problem after they started but they couldn't fix the problem because they didn't have the equipment to dock to the space station, hence, fix the problem/save the people.

You're wrong. They saw the panel hit the wing, but they didn't think it caused any damage. The thing is light as a styrofoam brick.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

IIRC, they(NASA) knew there was a problem after they started but they couldn't fix the problem because they didn't have the equipment to dock to the space station, hence, fix the problem/save the people.

Uhh, no. They saw the foam hit the shuttle three times prior with no ill effects. Furthermore the tiles could have never been repaired in space, docked or not. The shuttle was doomed from takeoff and nothing could have changed that.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Sifl
Without using google quickly tell me what the mission of the first shuttle to explode was. I certainly don't know, so I'm willing to provide a little latitude.

O-rings on the first shuttle caused it to explode. It was just a basic flight into space, but with a teacher.

I didn't ask why it exploded, and it certainly had mission related experiments on it.

I didn't say it didn't. But it wasn't any more special than any other flight. It was basic research.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

There are 3 John Titor threads already non-archived, and two more archived, including one with 140 posts. This has been beaten to death repeatedly.

And yes, I think you are a tool. FIrst of all, he is never specific in any of his 'predictions.' Second of all, that Columbia breakup had nothing to do with connecting parts to the ISS - I don't even think it carried any parts to the ISS at all (but I could be wrong on that second fact)

Try to have a conversation sometime without insulting people, it's really quite pointless.

The lab on board were experiments for ISS research.

 

[Looney]

You're a moron. Maybe before you get 'spooked' by something, you should actually look into it.

 

[beer]

And if you don't know that an O-ring caused the Challenger to be destroyed, i pity you. Having been a pretty significant event of our generation, I'd assume it'd be something that people would know off the top of your head.

But overall, sifl, you seem pretty dense. may I suggest associating yourself with Walleye and FelixDeCat

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

IIRC, they(NASA) knew there was a problem after they started but they couldn't fix the problem because they didn't have the equipment to dock to the space station, hence, fix the problem/save the people.

Uhh, no. They saw the foam hit the shuttle three times prior with no ill effects. Furthermore the tiles could have never been repaired in space, docked or not. The shuttle was doomed from takeoff and nothing could have changed that.

yeah, the shuttle was doomed but if they could dock on, they could have saved the people.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
You know, why didn't I think of this? Sit in my room, as always, and create a fake forum identity and post overly broad generalizations for a few weeks, then disappear and leave conspiracy theorists everywhere to create web sites and contemplate my statements as fact?

Calling someone a tool for finding the whole thing interesting merely discredits your opinion.

As for explicit predictions, this is the only one that he put out there short term, and it's effectively true. I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's just interesting.

No, it's not effectively true. The shuttle accident had zero to do with the space station.

IIRC, they(NASA) knew there was a problem after they started but they couldn't fix the problem because they didn't have the equipment to dock to the space station, hence, fix the problem/save the people.

Uhh, no. They saw the foam hit the shuttle three times prior with no ill effects. Furthermore the tiles could have never been repaired in space, docked or not. The shuttle was doomed from takeoff and nothing could have changed that.

yeah, the shuttle was doomed but if they could dock on, they could have saved the people.

But they didn't know there was a problem. This has happened in the past, and it's never caused any problems.

And BTW, who said they couldn't dock onto the space station?

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Elemental007
And if you don't know that an O-ring caused the Challenger to be destroyed, i pity you. Having been a pretty significant event of our generation, I'd assume it'd be something that people would know off the top of your head.

But overall, sifl, you seem pretty dense. may I suggest associating yourself with Walleye and FelixDeCat

You're making yourself to be quite foolish and illiterate, nowhere do I ask what made the shuttle crash. I only asked if you could recall its mission, which you cannot. Which makes John Titor a better future historian than you are with your own past.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Sifl

Originally posted by: Elemental007
And if you don't know that an O-ring caused the Challenger to be destroyed, i pity you. Having been a pretty significant event of our generation, I'd assume it'd be something that people would know off the top of your head.

But overall, sifl, you seem pretty dense. may I suggest associating yourself with Walleye and FelixDeCat

You're making yourself to be quite foolish and illiterate, nowhere do I ask what made the shuttle crash. I only asked if you could recall its mission, which you cannot. Which makes John Titor a better future historian than you are with your past.

LOLOL

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: ndee


yeah, the shuttle was doomed but if they could dock on, they could have saved the people.

You don't know a whole lot about shuttle ops, it seems. So I'll summarize it for you:

1) The ISS is equipped to handle 3 or 4 people in its current state. At the time, it had provisions for 3. Docking the shuttle would have raised the complement to 10. The systems cannot maintain life support, food and water supplies, etc.

2) NASA cannot prepare a shuttle for launch in less than 4 months. Even if they wanted to retrieve the crew, they could not; by the time the shuttle was ready the ISS crew would have been long dead.

3) They had seen the foam strike three times prior with no ill effects whatsoever. They weren't aware of the damage done to the tiles until they simulated it in a lab this past summer.

4) Shuttle plans have to go exactly to plan. NASA has no backup plans once the orbiter has been in the air for more than a few minutes. Immediately after launch, they can abort to Africa - this was conceived after the Challenger incident.