Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ufoinquirer
You don't even know who "she" is.
Is there any way we can all simply agree that, at the very least, the tweet was most likely posted on April 28? It seems to me that the primary
problem with this thread at this point is that some are posting who haven't bothered to take the time to read the whole thread and comprehend what
other posters have already stated. Trowa and Lucidity have been accused of believing that the OP hacked Twitter, when they have both already
repeatedly stated that they believe it is very VERY unlikely that the op did that. The name-calling and tit for tat going on here is getting
Here are the things we know (as best as I can figure out anyway):
1. The tweet was posted on the 28th of April.
2. The OP is most likely not some incredibly talented hacker who would use her talent to prank ATS.
3. To date, no one has been able to come up with a video of the FOX ticker from that day saying OBL was dead. In fact no one has found a ticker from
that day even mentioning OBL.
4. There is some ambiguity about the exact time of the tweet.
5. The OP is not a psychic, according to her own testimony here. Besides, trying to prove she is psychic would be a hell of a lot harder than proving
the rest of this, so it's pointless to even bother with that line of "reasoning."
6. The OP is no longer participating in this thread at this time.
Given these criteria, there is only so much we're going to be able to figure out. Either way, it's not helping to post here accusing people (whether
the OP, Lucidity, Trowa, or anyone else who disagrees with you) of any motives other than what is plainly stated by each poster as their true motives.
This is getting silly and irritating.
Here's what I think, and I welcome anyone who disagrees to tell me about it, but do it like a rational adult:
1. No hacking was involved in this.
2. The OP is sincere that she believes she saw the ticker.
3. The tweet was posted on the 28th, no matter what time of day it actually was posted. It doesn't matter whether the OP is accurate about the timing
of the ticker, the tweet, or even if she saw something or not. The tweet WAS posted THAT DAY.
4. The tweet doesn't say that OP "had a feeling" about OBL being killed. It doesn't say "haha just kidding" or "lol" or anything to indicate
it was a joke. It says she saw a ticker on FOX about OBL being dead. It wasn't a "joke" about how silly it is for FOX to cover the wedding when
more important things are happening in the world. It wasn't a "sarcastic" remark. And it blows the "ironic statement she posted about the inanity
of the Royal wedding, which she later capitalized on after she found out OBL was killed by coming here and getting everyone worked into a tizzy"
theory out of the water just by simply viewing the tweet and the other tweets posted that day. Whether FOX should have covered more "hard" news
wasn't an issue for the OP because it is clear she was VERY interested in the Royal Wedding. So, it makes absolutely no sense that she would comment
on the silliness of it all by posting a "joke" about OBL to ironically highlight the inanity of it all. That is simply a completely unfounded
5. It seems to me that the ticker item she saw wasn't taken by her to be all that big of a deal at the time. She was dealing with other things --
cousin, royal wedding, traveling, etc. She posted the tweet only to comment on the fact that it was odd that it wasn't breaking news all over the
place. When I fist heard about OBL being killed, it wasn't a big shock to me, and I doubt it shocked very many others either. I figured he was
already dead, and that one day we'd be hearing an announcement about it at an opportune time for some pol or TPTB. The OP didn't seem to be too
taken aback by the news. She didn't say "OMGOMG!!!!! OBL is dead!!!!!" She merely commented on what she saw and expressed surprise that it wasn't
a bigger news item.
I think that these things tend to lend a lot of credence to her story.
I have several problems with her story, however:
1. If she was concerned about her cousin to the point that she can't remember the details of her story, why would she then go to a "Royal Wedding"
party in AZ on her way to the East Coast?
2. She said she was "at home" when she saw it, and she lives on the West Coast. So, how could she also be in AZ when she saw it, as she later
3. Why would she come here to have the story vetted? No offense, but ATS isn't exactly the NY Times. Doesn't a story like this merit a bigger news
outlet? -- Even if it's a bigger alternative news outlet, such as Drudge or something?
4. I understand why she was scared off by the doxing comment, but now that she has had time to find out what doxing is, and she's taken steps to make
her info on Twitter more private, why not come back and help with the discussion?
So, I'm left with the idea that Meg honestly posted that tweet, and that it's not some elaborate internet hoax. But, she's not as enthused about
getting the story vetted and released as we are. Plus she either made a few honest mistakes, or she's being a bit dishonest with us, despite the fact
hat she did post that tweet, and is honest about what she thinks she saw. I think she's honest. Just an opinion, but there is much evidence to her
honesty than dishonesty, imo.
I think it's unreasonable to expect her to remember every detail of the situation because it's clear that it didn't seem like a big deal to her at
the time she posted the tweet. It was almost an off-hand remark. It would be nice if she could come here and give a detailed account of every moment
that day, along with corroborating evidence, but that's simply impossible for her to do, whether she's honest or not. Remember, on the 28th, Meg
would have had no reason to lie about what she claimed to have seen. Sure, maybe she could get some kind of benefit from it now, after the fact, even
if the only benefit is lulz. But that day there was no reason for her to post that tweet, other than she saw what she saw. Or saw something and made a
mistake about what it said.
So, we're left with an intriguing story, and at the very least one hell of a coincidence. But, as we can find no video evidence to prove the ticker
announced OBL's death on the 28th, a nifty story is pretty much all we have.
That's pretty much where I'm at on this. We have a story. A story with some corroboration (the tweet itself). But that's all we have. End of story
BTW, thanks, Meg, for bringing this story to us. It's been very intriguing and thought-provoking. I, for one, believe you. Unfortunately, my belief