"Why?" keeps popping up, but I think it's simply a case of people enjoying the process. There may not be any ulterior motives or anything, but this is fun and interesting nonetheless.
There's being doubtful and then there's being degrading. That's just the internet I guess, but it does take away from the fun. Ideally this would all be "evidence-based" with the degree of agreement coming from the amount, quality, and believability of the evidence provided. Trev provided a good bit to work with a little bit ago with some interesting tidbits bolstered by some extra, external information. (The matching product codes for Disney Art Academy being out there, for instance.) For me it's enough to enjoy, but that may not be enough for others. But still, there's no need to jump down his throat about it because it's personally not enough evidence for you. Time will sort it all out; use the time to debate it instead and prove your alternative case.
More on point, I think that Trev's source could be feeling secure if he's filtered out the information enough. If he kept his information only to those things a number of other people would have access to, he's more covered. With a company like Nintendo, that likely means he'd have to be somewhat aware of what others around him organizationally may know, so he's had to have been there for a little while. The more specific he gets, the more risk involved, and he obviously doesn't think this is that specific based on his position. Or he's just going rogue, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his savviness!
