It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News reported OBL's death DAYS EARLIER!!!

page: 62
302
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by noseeum
 

For the record, I neither believe not disbelieve. I just believe that it might be possible. And I feel it's crucial to be able to defend your stance that it absolutely, positively can't be hacked. Anything can be hacked.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by truthmagnet
 




Hmm... I'm skeptical....

(particularly because you have to become a follower to read the tweet)


No, you do not need to become a follower to read the tweet in question ...

I don't even have a twitter account and had no problem reading it.

This isn't hard people.

EDIT: My mistake, it appears that Meg or megneverlands has indeed changed the settings so that you must become a confirmed follower to read her tweets. COMPLETELY understandable given the recent widespread interest in her account, but I assure that this is new. I had no problem accessing her account or reading the tweet yesterday.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Nurv47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Thank you to one of the few other people in here that seems to be bothered by this. I mean I'm sorry as much as some like to think that this is not an issue it is. I can see no explanation for this other than her account being hacked/ tampered or she flat out lied about the time. I've sent some e-mails off to a few past fellow students and teachers from the tech school I attended have and asked them about it so I'm awaiting word now.

Trowa
edit on 9/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: to add a sentence



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 

I think what the person meant is that her page is now protected and you can no longer see the tweet that is the subject of the OP. Try it. It would be interesting if you could see it, as this is what I and many others are seeing:


@megneverlands's Tweets are protected.

Only confirmed followers have access to @megneverlands's Tweets and complete profile. You need to send a request before you can start following this account.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Yeah, I made a mistake, haha.

... My bad.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by noseeum
 

I think there's every possibility that she did post it that day. The thing is, when you march forth pointing the finger at this tweet as "proof" you are going to be challenged in a debate. Can you back it up when some technogeek (which again, I am not) comes and shows you how this can be done?

In addition, wonderful, foolproof, tamperproff Twitter (according to some) somehow put the wrong time on her post? It's showing that she posted it at 10:43 AM her time (US PT). Can someone explain that?


That makes two of us who are not "technogeeks" lol. I just think it's kind of far-fetched that she would change the time, and also go and change the Google cache. That, in my non-technogeek opinion, seems like a lot to go through just to screw with the people of ATS. So, I'd need extraordinary proof that she did that in order to believe it.

I can buy that she made a simple mistake. And I can buy that she really saw what she says she saw. I refuse to believe she hacked Google and Twiiter for what would essentially be a stupid prank on a relatively small group of people. The legal risk alone would make it not worth doing, just to cause a debate on ATS. And, I have seen no evidence that this has benefited her in any way, other than possibly giving her a couple more subscribers on her twitter feed -- subscribers who will surely delete the subscription the moment they find out she hoaxed them. So, all in all, I think she's sincere and that she did post the tweet. Did she possibly read the nuke threat and mistakenly think it was an announcement of Osama's death? Maybe. But it is clearly not a hoax, imo.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by noseeum
 

I think there's every possibility that she did post it that day. The thing is, when you march forth pointing the finger at this tweet as "proof" you are going to be challenged in a debate. Can you back it up when some technogeek (which again, I am not) comes and shows you how this can be done?

In addition, wonderful, foolproof, tamperproff Twitter (according to some) somehow put the wrong time on her post? It's showing that she posted it at 10:43 AM her time (US PT). Can someone explain that?


The time on her phone is not what is posted... the time posted is done by the main frame at twitter. Are there ever screwups??? Yup...

wordpress.org...

code.google.com...

twitter.com...#!/E_Beringer/status/62331878442668032

www.codingforums.com...

If twitter was hacked, we would have heard about it..



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennvideo

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by noseeum
 

I think there's every possibility that she did post it that day. The thing is, when you march forth pointing the finger at this tweet as "proof" you are going to be challenged in a debate. Can you back it up when some technogeek (which again, I am not) comes and shows you how this can be done?

In addition, wonderful, foolproof, tamperproff Twitter (according to some) somehow put the wrong time on her post? It's showing that she posted it at 10:43 AM her time (US PT). Can someone explain that?


The time on her phone is not what is posted... the time posted is done by the main frame at twitter. Are there ever screwups??? Yup...

wordpress.org...

code.google.com...

twitter.com...#!/E_Beringer/status/62331878442668032

www.codingforums.com...

If twitter was hacked, we would have heard about it..



ANYTHING online can be hacked. That's not a question in my mind. And it's pretty clear she did post the tweet on the 28th. What's bothering me is the fact that no one has been able to find the ticker in question. And the fact that very few have claimed to have seen it.

I think right now, the evidence is more in favor of the "mistake" theory. And it's still possible that she did indeed see an announcement that Osama is dead on that day. I'm just trying to make the point that it is VERY unlikely that this is a hoax on her part.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kennvideo
 

Again. You are using the term hacked to be static when it's dynamic. This could be something as simple as a "bug" in an API or an app that someone uncovered and took advantage of. This happens all the time.

What do you think all those fun Windows/Java/Adobe/IE/FireFox updates you deal with on your computer are all about? In many cases they're fixing security exposures that someone's figured out.

If you think Twitter/Seemic/Android/iPhone/Google/Windows Servers/other servers are immune, think again.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TrowaBarton
 


I think the most glaring piece of evidence proving that the tweet is genuine has been brought up a few times, but not excessively so, and is hard for me to find in the 62 pages. The evidence is the google cache page that shows, without a doubt, that tweet existed on the 28th of April exactly as it exists now. The cache page shows the 30th, but that even further proves it because that means the tweet must have existed prior to any official announcement of bin Laden's death.

I have been going through all the media watchdog websites and local FOX archives for the 28th, but it seems the local stations do not show the ticker like the cable channel does and the watchdog groups don't have video of that timeframe. Has anyone checked usenet for any archival material from that date? I don't have an account anymore, but I would imagine that if the video exists at all, it will most likely be somewhere on usenet.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by noseeum
 

Again, no one is freaking attacking her or implying that she did or did not do this on purpose. Or that someone else did it for her or did not do it for her. Or that she is or is not working with Anonymous of whoever for the common good. No one's freaking judging this. At least not ME.

But this "evidence" is worthless if that's a possibility and someone down the line can prove that this was manipulatable.....

reply to post by noseeum
 

and if the corroborating evidence is never found.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
BTW- sorry for the tone of my posts. I was getting irritated at constantly re-reading the off-topic remarks, so my irritation probably came through in my posts. After over 60 pages of posts, many of which are completely off-topic, I was pulling my hair out. Lucidity and Trowa are two who have kept on-topic through this whole thing .Thanks for that, from a reader who literally read every post.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

For the record, I neither believe not disbelieve. I just believe that it might be possible. And I feel it's crucial to be able to defend your stance that it absolutely, positively can't be hacked. Anything can be hacked.


I couldn't disagree more.

Of course, anything is possible. I think it's more crucial to defend your stance that Obama absolutely, positively can't be lying about everything he says. Anything he says can be a lie.

Is it more likely Obama is lying for self-serving reasons since he's the POTUS and his focus is on being re-elected?

Or is it more likely Meg created an elaborate hoax, setting up a twitter account, posting about the Royal Wedding, and then HACKING the date stamp just so a few hundred people here on ATS could see it?

Jesus..... Deny Ignorance, bro, not embrace it.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I've missed the last 20 pages of the thread, so I don't know if it's been mentioned in that time, but there is a rather simple way to interact with Twitter's code, and that's to use Userscript. It rewrites (or, perhaps more accurately, overwrites) the _javascript of the Twitter page and allows you to control how it operates. The thing is, though, is only works on your own computer, and it shouldn't interfere with processes that aren't pure _javascript code, like the date, of the post, which involves communication with the server. Even if Userscript could be used to overwrite the date output, it wouldn't extend to any computer other than the one the "hacker" is using...everyone else would still see the correct date.

However... if there's any possible way to crack the Twitter dating system, I would imagine this would be the place to start. IF Userscript (or some similar process) could be used to overwrite the dating process, and IF it could do so prior to Twitter's communication with the server to assign the date, and IF it could do so in such a way to confuse the server into giving a completely ridiculous date (in this case, 4 days earlier), and IF it could do so without being seen in the source code of the page, then I would say it could be done.
I must say, though, it would take some skill, and, personally, I'm not aware of how it could be done...but, then, I'm not someone who spends his time cracking systems and then hacking them for some internet conspiracy thrills.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 

Let me ask you a few questions. I remember seeing that but don't know how to check to see if Google cache was simply showing the timestamp of the tweet as Apr 28 (which we already know).

How do we tell the date of when the cache was cached? How long it was there? It goes into cache pretty much daily, as far as I know, and maybe more often to that. So can we tell if there's a timestamp of the date this tweet was FIRST cached? (Not the timestamp of what is being cached.).



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MindF
 


That's not my stance. In fact, my stance is exactly the opposite, and there's proof of that all over this thread and ATS.

It's ludicrous of you to even come at me with this. Why are you even here?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by noseeum
 


Just playing Devils advocate with this post

well her twitter followers have doubled since the other night and she has made claims about having a blog and her Twitter sig is a Writer/journalist...who probably travels too much. So she may very well be trying to direct attention from twitter to her blog or perhaps just hoaxing us for an article?

I did find it funny how selective her answers were and how she did play up the victim card. "Everyone here's so mean". " I don't think I'm going to post here again". For someone who claims to be a journalist she's got the thinnest skin I've ever seen and doesn't handle criticism or take the time to answer all the questions posed to her.

If you want to go that way theirs a nice direction on it.

Trowa
edit on 9/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: Spelling



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by noseeum
 

Again, no one is freaking attacking her or implying that she did or did not do this on purpose. Or that someone else did it for her or did not do it for her. Or that she is or is not working with Anonymous of whoever for the common good. No one's freaking judging this. At least not ME.

But this "evidence" is worthless if that's a possibility and someone down the line can prove that this was manipulatable.....

reply to post by noseeum
 

and if the corroborating evidence is never found.


No no -- I understand what you are trying to do. And if the story turns out to be true, it can only be beneficial to have corroboration and real evidence. If it's false, then it's a learning opportunity for Meg, as well as those who immediately jumped on board and made it viral. Someone famous and smarter than me said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm sorry if my tone seemed confrontational. It wasn't intended that way. I've appreciated the way many here, you and Trowa in particular, are sifting the relevant info.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I have not seen this scenario here yet...

She sees it on Fox but it's the REAL night Obama goes on TV Sunday May 1...
She tweets it...
She notices the timestamp is wrong after reading it...
Wow she thinks... what an opportunity to start something and get folks wondering...
Oops she thinks, whoa didn’t expect this kind of proctology exam from the people on ATS… So, she takes the steps with her Twitter account and we can’t see her stuff anymore…
ATS members are just that good and she didn’t realize that before she posted…
Viola... another possibility....
Thank you... Thank you very much....



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindF

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

For the record, I neither believe not disbelieve. I just believe that it might be possible. And I feel it's crucial to be able to defend your stance that it absolutely, positively can't be hacked. Anything can be hacked.


I couldn't disagree more.

Of course, anything is possible. I think it's more crucial to defend your stance that Obama absolutely, positively can't be lying about everything he says. Anything he says can be a lie.

Is it more likely Obama is lying for self-serving reasons since he's the POTUS and his focus is on being re-elected?

Or is it more likely Meg created an elaborate hoax, setting up a twitter account, posting about the Royal Wedding, and then HACKING the date stamp just so a few hundred people here on ATS could see it?

Jesus..... Deny Ignorance, bro, not embrace it.


That's not my stance. In fact, my stance is exactly the opposite, and there's proof of that all over this thread and ATS.

It's VERY clear that you are neither reading my posts in this thead nor thinking. Yes. Deny ignorance. Bro.

It's ludicrous of you to even come at me with this. Why are you even here?

What's also very clear is that you don't really care about walking the walk. You just want to grab this and flash it about as some kind of "proof" for your preconceived notions. This attitude and random babble hurts the quest for the truth, it doesn't help it. And it makes us all look bad.



new topics

top topics



 
302
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join