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: 72
302
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

I have a theory as to why this may have happened. The pre-prepared press packets weren't changed to reflect the delay of the mission, which was to have gone down on or around April 29 (or maybe even earlier in the week) but was delayed, reportedly due to weather and maybe another factor or two. Someone just didn't update the packets, so some erroneous information got out and some reporters read the packet and reported it before it could be corrected. That's the simple and obvious answer. But there may be more to it too. .




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by CLPrime
 


But why would the president jeopardize anything by lying about the date?

He must have known what some of the news agencies had been saying...

Hmmmm


We need like 10 body language experts to watch Obama's interview on 60 Minutes and get their thoughts.
Probably been done already, ya think?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Too bad that can't also explain the April 28 headline... it would help tie things up nicely.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kennvideo
 

What time zone are you in? A few reports I saw/heard/read were within minutes of the official announcement, just before midnight US ET, when I would assume the press announcements would have gone out. Those news media reporting it after the fact just didn't get the memo about the update and were reporting what they first read, I figure.


edit on 5/9/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 




Hmmm yeah that's plausible enough.

There are many holes in this story and I guess if a few can patched up then that's cool.

I'm still not convinced personally.... there were too many contradictions really and not all can be error or the "fog of war"



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Eastern.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

That's just a theory.And it makes sense IF the reports are true that the mission was delayed from Friday to Sunday for whatever reasons.

I have yet to have found the time to track all this stuff. I wanted to start a thread and have been keeping track of all these reports of it happening "a week ago" or "earlier this week." I'll get around to it eventually. And I agree. The more holes we can plug the less confusion there will be.


edit on 5/9/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by oleus
 

i've looked for both shows, so far, the only one that shown thru google search was "on the record" for that very day and when the link is clicked, the vid is "temporarily unavailable". temporarily unavailable

this is just the link of my search... I havent been able to kept up with this thread so it may be useless.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yeah...wish we knew the process by which these press packets/announcements were disseminated. And when. Do they like come in a package that says "DO NOT OPEN UNTIL..." or maybe in an email that's encrypted and someone decrypted it early? LOL

reply to post by kennvideo
 

That would be fascinating as hell. I watched it, and he seemed perfectly comfortable to me. I'm pretty good at reading faces and body language but by no means any kind of expert.
edit on 5/9/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Screen shots or it didn't happen. . .

Someone could have easily misinterpreted a news ticker that they briefly glanced at as it swept by. I have even had to wait a few minutes to reread a crawler and at times missed it all together because I just happened to glance at it as it fell off the queue. .



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
Screen shots or it didn't happen. . .

Someone could have easily misinterpreted a news ticker that they briefly glanced at as it swept by. I have even had to wait a few minutes to reread a crawler and at times missed it all together because I just happened to glance at it as it fell off the queue. .



I'm interested...

How do you misinterpret 'Osama bin Laden has been killed in U.S. attack'

Which would be darn close to what they would have ran...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kennvideo
 


Except they would have used "Usama". I do find it very interesting that no organization has released anything from Hannity or On the Record from April 28. I guess they got everything right that day?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kennvideo
 

A lot of the headlines I saw said things like "Nuclear reprisals if bin Laden killed"

That "if" is a small word. The person typing the ticker could have even left it out. They typo their tickers a LOT at FoxNews. Just saying.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury1984
reply to post by kennvideo
 


Except they would have used "Usama". I do find it very interesting that no organization has released anything from Hannity or On the Record from April 28. I guess they got everything right that day?


The correction 'Usama' spelling FNC uses is a petty point, sorry Fury.

So, let's here at FNC slip in by in a crawl that a madman has been killed after looking for him for nearly ten years????? Common, FNC would have been shouting it from the rooftops on EVERY show... with a damn the torpedoes full speed ahead attitude to either scoop everyone or do a better job reporting facts than anyone.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I looked up the transcripts for Hannity on April 28, 2011. It doesn't look like this show was on, or the transcripts aren't available. Calendar on right.

Hannity transcripts

Now the question is, if Hannity did not air in that time slot (6-7PM Pacific, 9-10PM Eastern), what did air?

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren did air. The transcript doesn't show much. No ticker in the video.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kennvideo
 


Sorry, I was joking. Should have put one of these next to it:



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury1984
reply to post by kennvideo
 


Sorry, I was joking. Should have put one of these next to it:


That's why I hate typing...can't see humor outright... we are cool...

Now, I betcha they were running Wedding Special crapola... in fact, I think they did.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I guess out of 50 million replies no body ever took time to see he was telling a joke to who ever he was tweeting jokingly saying what he said .To try to say that it would have been better coverage then what ever he and the other was looking at.

Kind a like. HEY The Fox News ticker is saying Osama bin Laden is dead. No breaking news & no other channels reporting. How odd ,LOL IM JUST PLAYING, BETTER THEN THIS COVERAGE ON THE ROYAL WEDDING.

HE THEN TOOK THAT AND RAN TO THE ATS ABOUT IT.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
I guess out of 50 million replies no body ever took time to see he was telling a joke to who ever he was tweeting jokingly saying what he said .To try to say that it would have been better coverage then what ever he and the other was looking at.

Kind a like. HEY The Fox News ticker is saying Osama bin Laden is dead. No breaking news & no other channels reporting. How odd ,LOL IM JUST PLAYING, BETTER THEN THIS COVERAGE ON THE ROYAL WEDDING.

HE THEN TOOK THAT AND RAN TO THE ATS ABOUT IT.


That's why it was posted to ATS a week after the fact? I don't buy that interpretation of events. From the surrounding tweets, it looks like he/she was really involved in the Royal Wedding.
edit on 5/9/2011 by Fury1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury1984

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
I guess out of 50 million replies no body ever took time to see he was telling a joke to who ever he was tweeting jokingly saying what he said .To try to say that it would have been better coverage then what ever he and the other was looking at.

Kind a like. HEY The Fox News ticker is saying Osama bin Laden is dead. No breaking news & no other channels reporting. How odd ,LOL IM JUST PLAYING, BETTER THEN THIS COVERAGE ON THE ROYAL WEDDING.

HE THEN TOOK THAT AND RAN TO THE ATS ABOUT IT.


That's why it was posted to ATS a week after the fact? I don't buy that interpretation of events. From the surrounding tweets, it looks like he/she was really involved in the Royal Wedding.
edit on 5/9/2011 by Fury1984 because: (no reason given)


I didn’t get to see what the whole tweet was about ,but that just my interpretation…being though he was 1 out of 7 billion people in the world that supposedly saw it.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
302
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join