<br /><br />but is it a fact that when all levels will be done by the end of 2012 that the hoax will be finished as well? I mean did TS make a statement that when all levels will be completed by the end of 2012 that there will be a bam? Perhaps there will be a sequel with level #9 of resurrection in 2013 ?<br />
<br /><br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,20134.msg348767.html<br /><br />I apologize if I may have given a negative impression of lack of faith or doubt. My questions were merely based on my search for certainty and facts about the BAM, because I wish for it so wholeheartedly, though I realize that at this moment is not possible to have certainty and facts. It is just a matter of having faith in Michael, TS and Front. This faith is a fact and that is all what is needed for the BAM. In the meantime whatever happens, I'll wait and watch with FAITH and LOVE. :bearhug: :bearhug: :bearhug:<br /><br />
<br /><br />TS did say that if Michael doesn't return by January 1 , 2013 then he can be considered a fake informer, but i strongly believe that come back will be before (or at least on) December 21, 2012...<br />I've read in few websites that the period after December 21 will bring a remarkable positive change in the world and that the world will be filled with love, so I'm actually linking Michael's comeback with it I'm thinking of Michael's words in "This is it" before Man In The Mirror about putting "Love back into the world" and "Love is important"...<br /><br />
TS did say that if Michael doesn't return by January 1 , 2013 then he can be considered a fake informer, but i strongly believe that come back will be before (or at least on) December 21, 2012...<br />I've read in few websites that the period after December 21 will bring a remarkable positive change in the world and that the world will be filled with love, so I'm actually linking Michael's comeback with it I'm thinking of Michael's words in "This is it" before Man In The Mirror about putting "Love back into the world" and "Love is important"...<br /><br /> />[/quote]<br /><br /> When did TS say that? I missed that, can you paste link. thanks<br /> I do consider TS fake informant though.<br /> Considering 7 is Michael's number, he should come back on 12/25 (7)/12 and TS will be a genuine informant.
<br /><br />but is it a fact that when all levels will be done by the end of 2012 that the hoax will be finished as well? I mean did TS make a statement that when all levels will be completed by the end of 2012 that there will be a bam? Perhaps there will be a sequel with level #9 of resurrection in 2013 ?<br />
<br /><br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,20134.msg348767.html<br /><br />I apologize if I may have given a negative impression of lack of faith or doubt. My questions were merely based on my search for certainty and facts about the BAM, because I wish for it so wholeheartedly, though I realize that at this moment is not possible to have certainty and facts. It is just a matter of having faith in Michael, TS and Front. This faith is a fact and that is all what is needed for the BAM. In the meantime whatever happens, I'll wait and watch with FAITH and LOVE. :bearhug: :bearhug: :bearhug:<br /><br />
<br /><br />TS did say that if Michael doesn't return by January 1 , 2013 then he can be considered a fake informer, but i strongly believe that come back will be before (or at least on) December 21, 2012...<br />I've read in few websites that the period after December 21 will bring a remarkable positive change in the world and that the world will be filled with love, so I'm actually linking Michael's comeback with it I'm thinking of Michael's words in "This is it" before Man In The Mirror about putting "Love back into the world" and "Love is important"...<br /><br /> />
<br /><br />I remember those words too more than EVER! and it's always good to hear/read them and we never can hear this important message too often from Michael, which should be spread as much as possible, so thanks for posting the link :icon_e_smile:<br /><br />
Everybody's doing a great job.<br /> <br />Let's continue<br />and believe and have faith.<br /> <br />Give me your all, your endurance,<br />your patience, and your understanding.<br /> <br />But it's an adventure,<br />it's a great adventure.<br /> <br />It's nothing to be nervous about.<br /> <br />They just want wonderful<br />experiences, they want escapism.<br /> <br />We wanna take them places<br />that they've never been before.<br /> <br />We wanna show them talent<br />like they've never seen before.<br /> <br />So give your all.<br /> <br />And I love you all.<br />And we're a family.<br /> <br />Just know that.<br />We're a family.<br /> <br />That's right.<br />Amen.<br /> <br />We're putting love back into the world to<br />remind the world that love is important.<br /> <br />Love is important. To love each other.<br />We're all one. That's the message.<br /> <br />And take care of the planet.<br /> <br />We have four years to get it right or else<br />it's irreversible, the damage we've done.<br /> <br />So we have an important<br />message to give.<br /> <br />Okay? It's important.<br /> <br />But I thank you for your cooperation<br />so far. Thank you. Big thank you.<br /> <br />Blessings! Blessings to all~Michael Jackson
<br /><br /> When did TS say that? I missed that, can you paste link. thanks<br /> I do consider TS fake informant though.<br /> Considering 7 is Michael's number, he should come back on 12/25 (7)/12 and TS will be a genuine informant.<br />
<br /><br />Hi, here's TS' quote:<br />
Last but not least: I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!! Previously, I have given probabilities, possibilities, hints, and clues of a BAM from MJ. However, this is the very first time that I have given a BAM timing with certainty—not that I am giving an exact day or even year (could be this year or next), but I am saying that there is a deadline beyond which his BAM will not be extended. I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!
Last but not least: I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!! Previously, I have given probabilities, possibilities, hints, and clues of a BAM from MJ. However, this is the very first time that I have given a BAM timing with certainty—not that I am giving an exact day or even year (could be this year or next), but I am saying that there is a deadline beyond which his BAM will not be extended. I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!
<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />The more I read TS quote the more I notice there is an inconsistency here because if he is not giving an exact year but he is saying that Michael will BAM before Jan 1st 2013 that means he is giving an exact year, or am I crazy? :icon_geek:
Last but not least: I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!!<br /><br /><br />I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!
Last but not least: I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!! Previously, I have given probabilities, possibilities, hints, and clues of a BAM from MJ. However, this is the very first time that I have given a BAM timing with certainty—not that I am giving an exact day or even year (could be this year or next), but I am saying that there is a deadline beyond which his BAM will not be extended. I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!
<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />The more I read TS quote the more I notice there is an inconsistency here because if he is not giving an exact year but he is saying that Michael will BAM before Jan 1st 2013 that means he is giving an exact year, or am I crazy? :icon_geek:<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />TS wrote that in 2011 so that's why he didn't specify 2012, just that MJ would BAM before 1/1/13. The thought that Michael could come back at anytime has been prevalent throughout the hoax. TS left the possibility of it happening in 2011 open with that statement. Very clever.
Exactly andrea. <br /><br />TS said that quote in August 2011, saying thta Michael could bam anytime, but the hoax cannot go on beyond the end of 2012. <br /><br />This leads me to think that the BAM will happen in the next few weeks leading up to the end of 2012 <br /><br />I can't help but think the 21st of Dec has so much significance like end of world, sun, Mayans, new fresh start etc. <br /><br />Michael could bam then or even before as I think the end of novemeber on the Thriller 30th anniversary is a possible bam date = Michaels Thriller 2???<br /><br />All in all like michael said its been a great adventure with all these clues. <br /><br />Michael always planned to come back I feel otherwise all these clues by the family and friends wouldn't be here. <br /><br />Michael were ready when you are to come back in and BAM!!!!<br /><br /> :moonwalk_:
Last but not least: I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!!<br /><br /><br />I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />contradictory<br />
<br /><br />Do you read it contradictory? It reads as the same thing to me.<br /><br />Before the end of 2012: any time/day prior to but not including 1/1/2013.<br /><br />By January 1, 2013: indicates the deadline is 1/1/13. As soon as the clock ticks one second past 11:59:59 on 12/31/12, it's 1/1/13 at 12:00 am and times up.<br /><br />The end of 2012 is on December 31st, 2012 at 11:59:59 pm. The very next second it instantly becomes January 1st, 2013. I read TS's words to indicate bamsday could be any day up to and including 12/31/12, down to the last minute/second, considering the second statement, "I say this with so much certainty that if MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that TS is a fake informer!" was written as emphasis to the other, earlier prediction, "I will say for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012!!!".<br /><br />However, I do have to say when I get a bill it usually states somewhere on the invoice "payment due by xx/xx/xx" and if I pay on that day it is considered on time and not late so, hmm. But if my bill said "payable before 1/1/13, I'd have it there by 12/31/12 or I'd expect to receive a late charge. <br /><br />I hope it becomes an irrelevant question in time, if you know what I mean.
Then TS should have been said that the deadline is January 01, no earlier than the end of the year, by that if it is before the 11:59 would have to have occurred on BAM.
I think it would be awesome if his BAM was 11/30 but for some reason I think it will be in December. Either way I am watchin' and waitin' and anticipating that the same kind of internet shutdown that happened on 6/25 will also happen on that day. The world will stop but not in mourning, but joyful dancing and singing in the streets. I know the joy I will feel in my heart will be almost uncontainable and I would LOVE to see the faces of people like Bashir and Dimond and Grace, not to mention all of those that have tried to make money off of Michael's name.<br /><br />Yep - it will be a day of celebration for most and for others....they will have egg all over their faces. Can't wait.<br /><br />Blessings to you all and God bless Michael and his family.
<br />... And good point about Candid Camera not being live. Hmm.
<br /><br />And here is a statement from Allen Font, on the need for a legal release to be signed before putting someone on the air.<br /><br />"I told him what we had done, I let him hear the record back, I paid him for his time, I had him sign a release, which permits us to use that sequence on the air …" {~5:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpj9j37zSfw}
<br />... And good point about Candid Camera not being live. Hmm.
<br /><br />And here is a statement from Allen Font, on the need for a legal release to be signed before putting someone on the air.<br /><br />"I told him what we had done, I let him hear the record back, I paid him for his time, I had him sign a release, which permits us to use that sequence on the air …" {~5:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpj9j37zSfw}<br />
<br /><br />I concede the point. Nice investigatory skills, TS.
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).
TS getting us back on track....away from thinking about the BAM :icon_e_wink: <br /><br />Interesting Candid Camera video.<br /><br />Not only was Michael Joseph Jackson an "alleged victim" but what ever occurred to the alleged victim took place on an alleged date too.<br /><br />I still haven't been able to find an entertainment movie about a trial/court case where this term is used. <br /><br />I can't help but think that the use of "alleged" will lead to who or what went to UCLA that day if it wasn't MJ.<br /><br />
<br />... Even the Jackson family quit talking about conspiracy and the "real" murderer over a year ago. <br />
<br /><br />Yes, and TS was also silent for nearly a year. But as I said, it's time for things to start rumbling again ...<br /><br />And in response to your question about this seeming inconsistency--only TS threads discussing serious things (sting, etc)--the man himself agreed that there is indeed "seriousness".<br /><br />I think MJonmind put it pretty well:<br />
You know where MJ is talking about Sony, his finances, business dealings, he would say, “It’s a very delicate situation.” And when he sings, TDRCAU, he is talking about TPTB, the NWO gang, bankers, all those in ruling positions who rob, cheat, lie, step on people to get what they want. I don’t think TS or MJ would openly say ‘they’ are a sting target—perhaps too dangerous. I think the evil people behind MJ’s false allegations and part of the ultimate target of the big STING, could be shown like a pyramid. At the bottom were Sneddon, Dimond, Grace, Even Chandler, the Arvizos. Next level could be Sony, Catholic Church, Racist powerful people. Next level possibly bankers, Bilderbergers, Illuminati. Next level IDK, alien/demonic powers. I say this because of 2 of Front’s early posts: (TS’ Sign #1 on the coming EOW and Michael Archangel=Jesus verifies this)
<br /><br />Judge Pastor announced months before the trial began that it would be televised, live. Witnesses were not caught unaware on camera and there were a couple witnesses who seemed very aware of being on camera. I would think that if a witness didn't agree to be on camera, they could've been blurred out, or something like that.
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. <br /><br /><br />A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. <br /><br /><br />A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.<br />
<br /><br />i agree with Andrea...<br />A trial ending up with the judgement "alleged victim" and "alleged date" seems paradoxical to me.<br />Michael has been legal throughout the trial...especially using the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" instead of "Michael Joe Jackson" (which is his legal name). And as "Michael Joseph Jackson" is not the real victim, the word "Alleged" has been used. sounds pretty legal to me! Hoax Court...
A trial ending up with the judgement "alleged victim" and "alleged date" seems paradoxical to me.
, <br /><br />that's difficult to argue against. You're right, how does a real trial get held over an alleged incident involving an alleged victim? These are the court's own words, not our's. That's a good argument.
It's the timing that makes the difference.<br />Pretrial and throughout court, "alleged" would not raise any eyebrows.<br />"Alleged" has to be clarified into "yes" or "no" during trial.<br />If this is not achieved in a verdict, the trial has not seen a true finish.
<br />It's the timing that makes the difference.<br />Pretrial and throughout court, "alleged" would not raise any eyebrows.<br />"Alleged" has to be clarified into "yes" or "no" during trial.<br />If this is not achieved in a verdict, the trial has not seen a true finish.<br />
<br /><br />Oh you're right. All trials are essentially held over alleged incidents involving alleged victims. Duh, nevermind.
I'm certainly no Lawyer, and I presume MJ has had a very astute legal team assisting him in this, but wouldn't "alleged victim" and "alleged date" being read during the verdict also go towards covering them in a legal sense if it was a sting court?
<br />I'm certainly no Lawyer, and I presume MJ has had a very astute legal team assisting him in this, but wouldn't "alleged victim" and "alleged date" being read during the verdict also go towards covering them in a legal sense if it was a sting court?<br />
<br /><br />i want to quote this:<br /> <br />
on 1352354514:
<br />So tired... have been wanting to jump in so many places with no timE. <br /><br />I still think he went to an airport. MJ AIR notwithstanding, I don't think he got on an airplane. Pay as you go cell phones seem to provide some measure of security against survellience...Pay, use, discard........<br /><br />I also still think it is a sting and hoax. I believe the sting has multiple layers;the trial was necessary and gave opportunity to show not only how irresponsible the media is (really? all the legal anomolies in the trial and the likes of COURT TV "journalists" don't question anything because the coverage is worth so much money?--not really surprised anymore). Then we have all the investigation taking a look at the state of courts and the shoddy state of activities and misuse of power-- harkening back to 2005 trial and Sneddon (bearing in mind that Michael was only one of his victims)-- and all the institutionalized cover ups to support the continuation of such corruption. We have had our eyes open to a range of organized crime and corruption, from the Interfor Report re embezzlement, the FBI being given documents regarding organized efforts to litigate Michael into bankruptcy in 2006, <br />to Chancery Club and Bet Tzedek Rico suits http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxbook/groups/topic/view/group_id/20/topic_id/50 <br />to acts of commission in Santa Barbara County and Los Angles County<br />The corruption in the State Bar of California http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxbook/groups/topic/view/group_id/20/topic_id/49<br />and the US Supreme court looking at the corruption in the California Supreme Court.<br /><br />Then there is all the business corruption surrounding Michael... which really needed Michael dead to fully expose since TPTB couldn't blame him any longer for things THEY did (really, all close people to Michael changed over the month before he died?--well good to keep enemies closer to give them rope to hang themselves with).........So MUCH business corruption its really unbeLIEvable----and even tho there have been attempts to expose this corruption, it is allowed to continue...And frankly, the activity is just indicative of what is happening to ALOT of us-- using information to use identities to invest in bogus deals to launder money etc....Same thing that brought down Keith Corbain's estate is happening everywhere.<br /><br />Then there are all the evidence of and hints at further real physical threats of harm to the family. Now then, this is a family that had to FIGHT to get charges pressed against the man (Bohana) that murdered Dee Dee, Tito's ex-wife in 1994, despite clear evidence that pointed to foul play. And from what I read,it needed persistance to have the DA office take another look at the case. But I digress<br /><br />I could go on and on, but my very tired brain needs to stop-- I know I have only mentioned little bits of so many things that have been swirling around. I feel the sting is multi-faceted and has many targets. Some may have been direct and more personal, others indirect (heck look at so many things that have developed-- Murdock exposed, Goldman Sacs exposed etc etc etc) but no less personal and relevant to lots of people. <br /><br />I just cant see the reason for the whole hoax to not have a serious sting component to it, as well as being intriguing.<br /><br />ok, I have blathered on too much and not even touched on so many other aspects of things, but my eyes are trying to close, so I will stop now!<br />Thanks for you patience :icon_redface:<br />
<br /><br />so maybe, a sting in a hoax... :michael_jackson-1135:
Quote from: bec on November 15, 2012, 01:14:50 PM<br />
I'm probably late to this party but the printed info on the MJ FB page is:<br /><br /><br />
Description<br />This is the official Michael Jackson Facebook page monitored and managed by the Estate of Michael Jackson with support of Sony Music Entertainment. Fans are encouraged to express the memories, join the conversation and express their thoughts and opinions in good taste and in accordance with respect for Michael Jackson and other fans alike. We strive to maintain a friendly atmosphere that is welcoming to all community members. That means keeping conversation on topic and within the scope of Michael Jackson as an entertainer and philanthropist. Profanity, degrading comments, off topic conversations will be removed and users subject to being banned.
<br /><br />Monitored n managed by the Estate. So Front=The Estate.<br /><br />The Estate=Branca n McLain.<br /><br />So there's no question, really, that Branca n McLain are in on the hoax.<br /><br />Again, I'm sure this is only news to me because I tend to be slow on stuff like this. I just haven't seen it spelled out as of recent. <br /><br />However, one would think Branca n McLain would have better things to do, being high powered lawyers n all, then to babysit a FB page on a nearly daily basis. Not that it would have to be one of them, per say. Just interesting.<br /><br />Ps. FB has recorded that the page was launched on 12/19/2007.
<br /> /><br />Thanks TS for picking out my post, but I’m curious that though I’ve listed Sony as among the harmful forces towards MJ, it was surely Sony that introduced the sequel to TII, of TIAI where it was discovered the redirect site, and our introduction to you, our guide and friend. In fact Sony could be supporting and involved with the whole hoax, (see Bec's post above) IDK. The issue MJ had in 2002 was over Tommy Mattola, not Sony, as he even said at his 45 birthday party. At 7:30 So I’m still not clear on that. <br /><br />Adi<br />Quote<br />
Interesting Candid Camera video.
<br />People (kids) can be so naturally funny and witty—as opposed to a planned script—and fast forward to today’s crazy number of reality shows. There, ordinary people can become overnight celebrities, for example the Kardashians, if their performance is enjoyed by the viewers. MJ talked about taking film to the next level, pioneering it. This hoax is a combination of candid camera, written script, audience participation (us), and so much more! The Murray trial perhaps contained all three. <br /><br />Does anyone remember a TMZ story, of this guy walking on the street, pictured accidentally in the background behind Conrad Murray, and he complained that he hadn't given his consent?
Comments