Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 80
302
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ufoinquirer
 


Back in the 50 pages of this thread Lucidity brought to our attention a few programs that let you back date tweets. If she has some other info. This may be what she was talking about or not. If she chooses not to include this info I do not blame her. I'm sure that if someone was to explain hacking on here they would get banned post haste.

As of right now we that are interested in this case should take Kens advice ad e-mail and call the radio show he mentioned at the top of the page 79. I strongly feel until we can acquire the video which is going to happen as a group which has them has contacted another user this is the best thing to do.

Sorry for basically repeating a post but I would love to keep this thread on track.

I also tweeted megneverlands and asked her to please come back and check out the thread as she has added me to her followers even though I have no idea how to operate, no want, or no use for a twitter account I made one for this purpose. Hopefully she will be willing to come back and answer at least our time question , if not she'll at least realize she has supporters/backers/like minded folk here.




That is all

Trowa



edit on 10/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: Spelling as per & to add content
edit on 10/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: spelling




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrowaBarton
reply to post by ufoinquirer
 


Back in the 50 pages of this thread Lucidity brought to our attention a few programs that let you back date tweets. If she has some other info. This may be what she was talking about or not. If she chooses not to include this info I do not blame her. I'm sure that if someone was to explain hacking on here they would get banned post haste.


edit on 10/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: Spelling as per & to add content
Really? I have not found any programs that allow back dating on Twitter, and do not recall seeing any inthread either. The yesterday hack did not work, I tried it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Yes I recall you saying that it doesn't work . I'm just stating that perhaps that is the info she is talking about, perhaps she found more info on it or got evidence etc that proves it does. I do not know I was just addressing the point that she mentioned it. It may work it may not. I have not a droid or I phone so I cant try.

Trowa
edit on 10/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: To add content



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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 ridiculous.

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 claim.
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 stated?
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 for me.

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 isn't evidence.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There are programs to manipulate timestamps...

www.snaphow.com...

www.ehow.com...

Could something like these be used???



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by noseeum

Is there any way we can all simply agree that, at the very least, the tweet was most likely posted on April 28?


I would think this would certainly be the one thing we could all agree on. I mean, we have the Google cache from April 30 which showed the tweet existed then, so there should be no cause for doubting that the tweet was posted before the official announcement... in fact, days before the official announcement.

-----------------------------------


ON THE MATTER OF HACKING...

I saw someone above mention the difference between hacking into something to view and hacking into something to change. Not to be nitpicky, but this isn't quite right either. Being me, I've been trying my best to be accurate with my own terminology, but, for those who don't know, here's how it works:

Cracking: breaking into a system/program to view or extract information
Hacking: writing, rewriting, overwriting, or altering the code of a system/program

Anyone who programs is a hacker... hacking is perfectly legal (even Lex, the girl from Jurassic Park, was a hacker). The illegal part is the cracking.

It's quite possible to crack Twitter. It's also quite possible to hack the _javascript of Twitter (that's what Userscript and ALL of the other programs mentioned so far in this thread do - even the ones that people are claiming back-date posts). Hacking the timestamp and the ordering of the post is what's highly unlikely... to do so would require a ridiculous amount of skill and resources.

But, then, we know it wasn't hacked...because of Google cache. This case, at least, should really be closed. The tweet was posted on April 28.
edit on 10-5-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennvideo
There are programs to manipulate timestamps...

www.snaphow.com...

www.ehow.com...

Could something like these be used???


Sorry, I can't do this time-stamp thing anymore. It's driving me batty!

Someone mentioned that Twitter's standard time is Hawaii time. Look at a time-zone map for the entire U.S.

10:43AM in Hawaii is 12:43 Pacific, 1:43 Mountain, 2:43 Central, and 3:43 Eastern. Interestingly, ALL of those times show up in this thread. Also, it is possible that the tweet posted at a different time than she remembers because of bad reception in the area(s) she was in. And she may not have a precise memory of exactly when she posted the tweet. So, the exact time is not something we're going to be able to pin down. It's a pointless endeavor.

The important part of the time-stamp in this case is the DAY, APRIL 28th! Show me how it matters that she posted at say 1:30, or 3:57 AM or PM if it's clear she posted it on the 28th? The actual hour and minute of the tweet is a non-issue, imo. Can we pleas simply accept that the time is ambiguous and move on to the DAY??!!!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by TrowaBarton
reply to post by ufoinquirer
 


Back in the 50 pages of this thread Lucidity brought to our attention a few programs that let you back date tweets. If she has some other info. This may be what she was talking about or not. If she chooses not to include this info I do not blame her. I'm sure that if someone was to explain hacking on here they would get banned post haste.


edit on 10/5/11 by TrowaBarton because: Spelling as per & to add content
Really? I have not found any programs that allow back dating on Twitter, and do not recall seeing any inthread either. The yesterday hack did not work, I tried it.


You can make it LOOK like it is backdated on YOUR screen.

What you cannot do is make it look backed dated on someone else's screen.

You can use utilities to FORWARD date tweets for later publication. You cannot publish them in reverse.

Again the Tweet ID is a unique system assigned id assigned to every tweet. Tweet Ids are sequential. If the Tweet ID's sequence is out of order to the dates of tweets id which are one before or one less (tweet ids which will likely belong to other users) then one can conclude that the date is good.

Further, the Tweet ID will have a system assigned date and time which is not formated It will be UTC likely coded in hex/binary based on a base date. This would eliminate the problem of time zones. The native time will be in greenwich and we can format it is however we like to find the "local" time for the area necessary.

If we had some coders/developers who worked with Twitter, we could see if they can pull this information.

(again, I know what has to be done, I just don't know how to do it.)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I challenge anyone here who has posted on this thread to pick a random page and PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you posted on that page was posted at precisely the time your post's time-stamp says it was posted. If you can't do that, then you can't expect Meg to do it either. We either accept that the tweet was posted when the stamp says it was, or we don't.

I don't really care whether she can verify the time she SAYS she posted it because I have a screen-shot of when TWITTER says it was posted. That's good enough for me. I can safely assume that Meg is mistaken about the time, and that Twitter is not. That doesn't make her story any less believable to me because guess what -- I can't prove that this post I'm writing right now will have been posted at the precise time the time-stamp will say it was posted. But I can say with absolute certainty that I have no way of changing the time that the ATS server assigns to the post. So, ATS server is the more reliable witness to the time of this post. Therefore, I will yield to it's superior time-tracking abilities. It's a non-issue.

Tell me how and why she posted the tweet on THAT DAY. Then, maybe we can debunk this whole thing. Otherwise, no one has proven a thing. Not the OP, not me, not any of you.

Her story is believable because it makes no logical sense that she would post that tweet in that context randomly for no reason. As Trowa has stated, no evidence has been found that there was a FOX news ticker mentioning OBL at all that day, so she didn't simply "mis-read" anything either.

We can't prove her story true with the evidence we have right now. But we also can't prove her wrong. All we can do is use logic to determine whether the story is believable or if it's complete hogwash. I say it's believable, and I can back up that assertion with logic. That doesn't mean it's true. It just means that the most likely scenario is that she saw what she said she saw, and she posted the tweet as an off-hand remark in the context of what she was REALLY interested in at the time -- the Royal Wedding.

Can I take that to a court of law and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that FOX really did announce the death early? No. Does that matter to me? No, because I'm not trying to make a federal case out of it. I'm simply trying to come to my own conclusions in a logical fashion. That's good enough for me.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by noseeum

Originally posted by kennvideo
There are programs to manipulate timestamps...

www.snaphow.com...

www.ehow.com...

Could something like these be used???


Sorry, I can't do this time-stamp thing anymore. It's driving me batty!

Someone mentioned that Twitter's standard time is Hawaii time. Look at a time-zone map for the entire U.S.


No Twitter used UTC or GMT the time in Greenwich, England... I checked it yesterday and posted it... you prob didn't see it....
edit on 10-5-2011 by kennvideo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Correction to my earlier post:

10:43 in Hawaii is three hours later in Pacific time. 10:43AM in Hawaii is 1:43PM in Pacific, 2:43PM Mountain, 3:43PM Central, 4:43PM Eastern. So, there's a 6 hour window right there. If Twitter's time is Hawaii, and I post a tweet at 4:43PM in New York, it could show up as 10:43AM to a reader of my tweet. Why can't anyone understand this?

ETA: Sorry, didn't see the post about GMT at Twitter when I posted this.
edit on 10-5-2011 by noseeum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by noseeum
 


Fine. Accept that someone posted it on April 28. Now why's the time not match the story? Possible explanations?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   


At about 2:20 there is a ticker noting that in Germany 3 Al-Qaeda members where arrested, with no other information.

Potential that the USA had given out the information retrieved from Osama's computers, and a round up of members was already underway before the official announcement, but after the actual operation.
edit on 2011/5/10 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
80 pages and I am lazy but I noticed when watching RT on the morning of Osama's 'death' that the ticker on their screen claimed he had been killed a week ago... I got my husband to look at it and his reply was "They haven't got a clu have they really?" but it bugged me because it stayed saying a week ago for the hour I was getting ready... surely if all the other channels were saying it was at 5am THAT day then they would have fixed it?

I have no idea where I could find a recording of that news section but it was CET 7am until CET 8am when I was flicking through the channels and saw it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Don't know. Maybe she's wrong about when it happened. Maybe she saw the ticker late on the 27th, so it showed up GMT 10:43AM. Maybe she is mistaken about the entire time-frame in general.

What I do know is that Twitter's time-stamp shows that she posted that tweet on the 28th, and that's several days before OBL was supposedly killed. Why did she post this tweet? How did she essentially announce the killing days before it supposedly happened? That seems to me to be a more important question. And because of Twitter's time-stamp, it's got better evidence that doesn't rely on someone's recollection of events from a busy night.

Maybe she saw a ticker, maybe not. Maybe she's right about the timing, maybe not. Maybe she's honest, maybe not. Doesn't matter, because Twitter's server ha zero motive to lie. and it isn't likely that it made a mistake with the date on that one tweet and no others.

So, the most reliable testimony we have is the Twitter time-stamp, and it says April 28th. Shouldn't we be relying on the most reliable evidence? And not get bogged down in what may be unreliable evidence -- i.e. Meg's memory of an off-hand comment on a busy night?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by yzzyUK
80 pages and I am lazy but I noticed when watching RT on the morning of Osama's 'death' that the ticker on their screen claimed he had been killed a week ago... I got my husband to look at it and his reply was "They haven't got a clu have they really?" but it bugged me because it stayed saying a week ago for the hour I was getting ready... surely if all the other channels were saying it was at 5am THAT day then they would have fixed it?

I have no idea where I could find a recording of that news section but it was CET 7am until CET 8am when I was flicking through the channels and saw it.


Strange, isn't it? Several news outlets and even a few reporter's Twitter updates said "a week ago." There are screen shots of the tweets in previous posts on this thread, and the RT vid is somewhere here too, I think. The many changed "facts" surrounding OBL's death are what makes this whole thing seem like BS to me. In fact, the many MANY changed stories are documented all over the place in the MSM and the alt media. To be honest, Meg's story isn't really that big of a story, when viewed alongside the many documented changed "facts" from the official story. BTW, what is the "official" story now anyway?... I lost track about two days ago.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I think some people are getting too distracted by possibilities. We're too busy thinking of all the ways someone could pull off the impossible that we're not following the evidence, and, consequently, we're not getting anywhere.

Seriously. It might be a very sophisticated hack (actually, no, it couldn't be...but anywho). It might be a government psyop (and it very well could be...though, even this is unlikely, given the evidence we have so far). It might even be aliens. Or, it might be a legitimate person who saw a ticker headline about Osama's death on Fox News on April 28 and tweeted about it.
Whatever it is, we're not going to find out if we let the possibilities get in the way of the certainties. And, I shouldn't have to restate the certainties... Trowa just did that a couple pages back. Plus, I've been trying my best to establish the fact that this could not be a hack (which means it WAS posted on April 28).

I know most other people aren't like me, but I've always had a psychological problem with having an opinion about anything that doesn't have enough evidence to form an opinion. Many people start forming opinions before they've even considered the evidence... but I find it impossible to do so. If you asked me right now to form an opinion based on what we've seen so far, I couldn't do it. All I'd be able to do is spit back all the evidence we've accumulated so far... there's not enough yet to come to any conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, before we start making up our minds, I think we need to remember: we've got evidence to follow. In a case like this, we have no room for opinions or personal prejudices. We have to go wherever the evidence leads...whether we like it or not.
edit on 10-5-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
I think some people are getting too distracted by possibilities. We're too busy thinking of all the ways someone could pull off the impossible that we're not following the evidence, and, consequently, we're not getting anywhere.

Seriously. It might be a very sophisticated hack (actually, no, it couldn't be...but anywho). It might be a government psyop (and it very well could be...though, even this is unlikely, given the evidence we have so far). It might even be aliens. Or, it might be a legitimate person who saw a ticker headline about Osama's death on Fox News on April 28 and tweeted about it.
Whatever it is, we're not going to find out if we let the possibilities get in the way of the certainties. And, I shouldn't have to restate the certainties... Trowa just did that a couple pages back. Plus, I've been trying my best to establish the fact that this could not be a hack (which means it WAS posted on April 28).

I know most other people aren't like me, but I've always had a psychological problem with having an opinion about anything that doesn't have enough evidence to form an opinion. Many people start forming opinions before they've even considered the evidence... but I find it impossible to do so. If you asked me right now to form an opinion based on what we've seen so far, I couldn't do it. All I'd be able to do is spit back all the evidence we've accumulated so far... there's not enough yet to come to any conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, before we start making up our minds, I think we need to remember: we've got evidence to follow. In a case like this, we have no room for opinions or personal prejudices. We have to go wherever the evidence leads...whether we like it or not.
edit on 10-5-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


YES!!! How do I give you stars or whatever? You earned them with that post right there!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


At this point, it's much more likely that Meg simply got confused about when she saw it. We can say all we want that to be so confused that you mix up morning and evening seems hard for us to believe, but, regardless, it's much less likely that the timestamp is wrong.

We need to push on under the reasonable conclusion that the timestamp is accurate. If something comes up that later leads us to conclude otherwise, then we change our conclusion, but, for now, there's nothing else we can do given the evidence we have.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


At this point, it's much more likely that Meg simply got confused about when she saw it. We can say all we want that to be so confused that you mix up morning and evening seems hard for us to believe, but, regardless, it's much less likely that the timestamp is wrong.

We need to push on under the reasonable conclusion that the timestamp is accurate. If something comes up that later leads us to conclude otherwise, then we change our conclusion, but, for now, there's nothing else we can do given the evidence we have.


I agree...





new topics

top topics



 
302
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join