<br />[size=14pt]12 Evidences for DWD[/size]<br /><br />Now for a dozen evidences in support of the DWD theory. This is merely a review, so I won’t be repeating much of the details (they can be found in previous posts by me and/or others). And please pay attention to the difference between the reasons for the FBI choosing to use a DWD patient (which we may not fully understand), and the evidences that a real DWD patient was actually used (which we should all be able to understand).<br /><br />#1 Confusion of appearance (both with the real MJ, and also with the DWD patient); there would be no need for confusion of appearance, if a good MJ look-alike dummy was used, or live MJ.<br /><br />#2 The 3-5-09 WA DWD. If we dismiss this as merely a koinkidink, then why not dismiss all the other hoax koinkidinks? Besides, this is not “stand alone” evidence—it is evidence which fits perfectly into all the other points listed here.<br /><br />#3 Two “unknown” WA DWD death locations in 2009 (never any other “unknown” in WA, and no “unknown” in OR for the first 13 years).<br /><br />#4 TIAI redirected to the TMZ home page, shortly before the TMZ article that MJ killed himself (on 4-4 at 4am, 2010); and DWD patients must “ingest the medication unassisted”—they must kill themselves.<br /><br />#5 Paramedics said that it looked like a hospice patient (about 80% to 90% of DWD deaths were also hospice patients). Whether they are all in on the hoax, or not, there has been no good explanation for why they would lie about this.<br /><br />#6 The warm room on a summer day in California seems unnecessary, if it was a dummy or live MJ.<br /><br />#7 Nobody was allowed upstairs in the Carolwood home. A dummy could be kept in a locked case, until the “emergency” began; aside from a few seconds to take the dummy out of the case, and place it on the bed, there would never be any problem if someone not in the hoax went upstairs. The live MJ theory would also need little if any secrecy upstairs.<br /><br />#8 Reports from MJ fans that there was a lot of extra security at Carolwood on the night of June 24/25, 2009. This would be when the DWD patient was brought into the home (and also explains a reason for the missing CCTV). Like #7 above, a locked up dummy or live MJ would not need all that extra security.<br /><br />#9 The staff was dismissed, before bringing the body down to the ambulance (stated by Kai and Ben); this would not be needed, if there was a dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009 or live MJ.<br /><br />#10 The towel on the face (another precaution, in addition to dismissing the staff); again, this would not be needed, if there was a dummy or live MJ. This also provides another reason for staging the ambo pic in advance; if it was a dummy or live MJ, they could’ve arranged things to “accidentally” let Ben or Chris get a shot of loading MJ into the ambulance, or something. But if it was a DWD patient, a picture taken in real time would not work.<br /><br />#11 Sharon said that the body on the stretcher was too short for MJ. A dummy would be made to match the size of MJ, and would not be too short; and live MJ certainly would not be too short. We can try to minimize this evidence, by saying that Sharon did not have a good perspective of the patient on the stretcher, or Sharon is not a reliable witness, or whatever. However, with the DWD theory, you don’t have to come up with any such explanations—you can simply take it at face value, the patient looked shorter than Michael because the patient WAS shorter than Michael. Simple.<br /><br />#12 The verdict: “Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information.” The charge stated in context is “involuntary manslaughter”—not suicide, or assisted suicide; so even if the DWD patient method was illegal in CA, yet the patient would not be an actual victim of manslaughter (he would be an “alleged victim”). And especially with the FBI sting making the DWD method legal in CA, there is certainly no legal basis for the patient being an actual victim of manslaughter.<br /><br />We may not be able to positively verify all 12 of these points (such as the towel on the face); however, as I said already, we should take things at “face” value—unless there is good evidence that someone is lying. And in this case, all 12 evidences support the same simple conclusion; no need for any fancy back-flips, or complicated explanations. {see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor}<br /><br />I am not listing the following as one of the twelve evidences, but La Toya did give a very clear clue less than ten minutes after TS first posted the DWD evidence: “What is everyone doing with the left overs?” {https://twitter.com/latoyajackson/status/272069763553964033}<br /><br />And clear back in March of 2010 (Update #4), TS said: “… Or there was a real human corpse, which had recently died.” Notice that I did not mention a corpse in cold storage for a long time; and DWD fits exactly with a patient who had “recently died.”<br /><br />If all of this is merely the result of MJ trying to create an illusion, that it was a DWD patient—when in reality it was a dummy or live MJ—what would be the purpose? Can someone with an active imagination come up with a far-fetched explanation, for this slight possibility? No doubt. However, can anyone come up with solid evidence to support this idea—which is based neither upon imagination, nor upon far-fetched explanations? Not likely.<br /><br />Oh, and one last very important point: almost all of these 12 evidences support the hoax theory, and do not support the literal murder theory.<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /><br /> :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley:<br />
<br /><br />Well, as I've always thought they've used a corpse, I prefer to take your words at face value TS.<br /><br />edit: if I am wrong, so be it.
<br /><br />... One date I noticed TS is the date you have for the burial in the quote below. I presume this is not a mistake or a typo and you have intentionally given us the date the burial was really filmed and then later beamed to the world on 9-3-09?:<br /><br />
#2. Direction could also be run on the scene by the FBI. In fact, 6-25-09 was the day that FBI had primary say over how things would be run; MJ picked the day, and time, and most of the rest was arranged by the FBI. The memorial (7-7-09) and [size=12pt]burial (8-3-09)[/size] were events that MJ was the primary director (these were also the events with the Liberian Girl pictures). And even on 6-25-09, MJ could give remote directions, if needed, via encrypted e-mail {www.hushmail.com}.
<br />@BTC .... So I don't see how questioning TS is undermining him or anyone supporting a different viewpoint, I find that much is learned from debate, for both 'sides'. <br />
<br /><br />I never said that questioning TS is undermining him....he, himself, has always told us to do so. We should question everything...my point was that we should not only question if info is false, but also if it's true. Sure, there's always the possibility that he's 'misleading' us...but if that's the only reason to doubt the theory, then the doubt is NOT based on the info but instead on the one providing it. It's the info that should be questioned, IMO, not the messenger....and not with personal opinions but rather with evidence that contradicts the info provided.<br /><br />Perhaps I just see things differently because to me this was never about a 'debate' or about being on one 'side' or another....I saw it as working together, as a team, to try to figure out as best we could, all we could. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br /><br />I see it as working together as well, debating various theories is a part of that or else we would've all agreed on a theory years ago. Not everyone is going to see things the same or take something at face value, and that's not suggesting you are, that's just the way it is. The fact that TS might be misleading us is not my only reason for doubting the DWD theory. Some of the evidence is shaky at best but same with some evidences for the live MJ/dummy theory. My point was it can go either way and I do question everything, especially lately. And you're right, you didn't say questioning TS is undermining him, I didn't word what I read correctly. I just haven't seen anything undeniable yet. A vague FBI involvement to answer the unexplainable details doesn't sit right, curls is right about it being a sort of cop-out clause so that's one reason why I question some of the evidence TS (and others) have presented. I will accept whatever happened that day, I just hope one day we'll know. You know what I mean?
1. I highly doubt that TS is only playing with us right now! There's no tIME left for games and for "lessons" now!<br />Even if he said he may play the devil's advocate.... Maybe he just threw that for "them"(forum-watchers, remember!?) , not for us! Even if BAM approaches, this is still a very delicate situation here!<br />Because if he still cannot give us the answers to all questions, then it means there is still a period of precaution until after the BAM!<br /><br />2. If both theories are plausible, yet confusion is installed, Then why shouldn't we trust TS?<br />If we don't trust in him after all these years and after all the clues and evidence he provided (plus verifications from the family), then who the hell (sorry) should we trust!?<br />I seriously think we've all passed that period when he was teaching us to think for ourselves!<br />I think he left us enough time to debate/chew these theories and decide for ourselves!<br />Many of US have decided on which theory to go, way before TS posted his answers!<br />And then he comes and provides logical explanations in favor of one of those theories!<br />As Paris once said: "Why can't you just believe!?"
<br />1. I highly doubt that TS is only playing with us right now! There's no tIME left for games and for "lessons" now!<br />
<br /><br />@Sim, one could argue that this is the ideal time to 'play' with us - to cause the very disturbance that is now apparent .... before the climax! Can't be having us all quietly sitting here drumming our fingers! But I'm not going to labour the point! What happened happened, what will be will be. My thoughts, and those of anyone else here, make not one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
One can interpret TS either way (he just had to throw that DA post in there, lol). No point arguing over it.<br /><br /> :bearhug:<br /><br />Happy now MJ? You prankster! :icon_lol:
<br />[...] What happened happened, what will be will be. My thoughts, and those of anyone else here, make not one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
Sim and Curls, I think you're both right! This is MJ we're dealing with here afterall! Something did happen on the 'death day', a certain truth. And TS is leading towards a certain direction, the climax of this adventure. There would be no point in constantly lying/toying with us and yanking us all over the place like a yoyo. Why would MJ and TS and Front have expended enormous energy, effort, time and money for this, if only to laugh at our stupid gullibility? NO, we are moving towards a goal, he the teacher or game-master, or adventure guide, or driver for the journey. Timing is all important, and TS has given us his time to not waste all these 4 years. <br /><br />Does anyone remember the story of the fans that were waiting at the house saying besides the part about the extra security and the light on in his room all night, that when MJ arrived, he was acting strange, didn’t seem his usual friendly manner towards them and was not eagerly accepting their gifts? Paula do you have that story link by chance? I’m wondering if the the DWD patient had had surgery to look more like MJ, as did the patient in Elvis’s hoax? TS seems to infer that the patient had legally changed his name to Michael Joseph Jackson to add for realism, and so people didn’t feel so much like they were lying. This DWD patient also could have been wearing a mask, wig, white MJ make-up or usual dress of MJ going home from rehearsals. Even if he needed assistance getting out of the SUV or a wheelchair, that would have been beyond the gates where fans would not see. To make a decision to end your life, you have to be clear thinking and might even be well enough to appear reasonable healthy.<br /><br />I know this is Michael just grimacing really hard, but it makes me laugh. And also pics of him in the wheelchair, were all preparing people to swallow MJ looking like a hospice patient. I can do this to, while I look in the mirror, but it gives me a headache! lol<br /><br /><br />Adi<br />
We don't know what Michael's beliefs are in regards to this and he is possibly a very liberal thinker...more so than alot of people might believe. People can still be very spiritual and religious and still be very liberal in their beliefs/ideas and thinking..
<br /><br />TS said he personally supports DWD. It’s interesting to me that MJ didn’t want to his security to kill a bug on stage, yet he was quite okay feeding live mice to his snakes. <br /><br />Andrea, thanks for 'going there', and your arguments were good, and sparked discussion.<br />
"Someone had to die."
<br />Great find! How many movies have this as part of the ending scenes—lots. And I always hate when the hero dies, I always feel better if a lesser involved person dies, when you’ve gotten attached to the main characters. Interesting parallel mention of Christ’s death. Would we have been happier if it was MJ who had willingly sacrificed himself for helping the world in some way? No, but if he miraculously resurrected then we’d be okay with it. So we don’t like the hero to die. There are movies I can think of where minor role characters die and save many other lives; I’m happier with those stories—like a soldier in a line of duty. Sometimes even in reality, it’s only when there’s a death of someone, that others wake up to a certain danger or problem, which leads to the solution or change.<br /><br />Bec<br />
There are people here who supported the dead body theory or the DWD theory, why didn't he ask them to lay out their reasons?
<br />I always take it that TS picks those who feel comfortable laying down strong logical arguments in an organized fashion, and you definitely have strengths there—obvious from day one. He’s not going to pick someone he thinks may feel uncomfortable being picked for the task.<br />
<br />[size=14pt]12 Evidences for DWD[/size]<br /><br />Now for a dozen evidences in support of the DWD theory. This is merely a review, so I won’t be repeating much of the details (they can be found in previous posts by me and/or others). And please pay attention to the difference between the reasons for the FBI choosing to use a DWD patient (which we may not fully understand), and the evidences that a real DWD patient was actually used (which we should all be able to understand).<br /><br />#1 Confusion of appearance (both with the real MJ, and also with the DWD patient); there would be no need for confusion of appearance, if a good MJ look-alike dummy was used, or live MJ.<br /><br />#2 The 3-5-09 WA DWD. If we dismiss this as merely a koinkidink, then why not dismiss all the other hoax koinkidinks? Besides, this is not “stand alone” evidence—it is evidence which fits perfectly into all the other points listed here.<br /><br />#3 Two “unknown” WA DWD death locations in 2009 (never any other “unknown” in WA, and no “unknown” in OR for the first 13 years).<br /><br />#4 TIAI redirected to the TMZ home page, shortly before the TMZ article that MJ killed himself (on 4-4 at 4am, 2010); and DWD patients must “ingest the medication unassisted”—they must kill themselves.<br /><br />#5 Paramedics said that it looked like a hospice patient (about 80% to 90% of DWD deaths were also hospice patients). Whether they are all in on the hoax, or not, there has been no good explanation for why they would lie about this.<br /><br />#6 The warm room on a summer day in California seems unnecessary, if it was a dummy or live MJ.<br /><br />#7 Nobody was allowed upstairs in the Carolwood home. A dummy could be kept in a locked case, until the “emergency” began; aside from a few seconds to take the dummy out of the case, and place it on the bed, there would never be any problem if someone not in the hoax went upstairs. The live MJ theory would also need little if any secrecy upstairs.<br /><br />#8 Reports from MJ fans that there was a lot of extra security at Carolwood on the night of June 24/25, 2009. This would be when the DWD patient was brought into the home (and also explains a reason for the missing CCTV). Like #7 above, a locked up dummy or live MJ would not need all that extra security.<br /><br />#9 The staff was dismissed, before bringing the body down to the ambulance (stated by Kai and Ben); this would not be needed, if there was a dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009 or live MJ.<br /><br />#10 The towel on the face (another precaution, in addition to dismissing the staff); again, this would not be needed, if there was a dummy or live MJ. This also provides another reason for staging the ambo pic in advance; if it was a dummy or live MJ, they could’ve arranged things to “accidentally” let Ben or Chris get a shot of loading MJ into the ambulance, or something. But if it was a DWD patient, a picture taken in real time would not work.<br /><br />#11 Sharon said that the body on the stretcher was too short for MJ. A dummy would be made to match the size of MJ, and would not be too short; and live MJ certainly would not be too short. We can try to minimize this evidence, by saying that Sharon did not have a good perspective of the patient on the stretcher, or Sharon is not a reliable witness, or whatever. However, with the DWD theory, you don’t have to come up with any such explanations—you can simply take it at face value, the patient looked shorter than Michael because the patient WAS shorter than Michael. Simple.<br /><br />#12 The verdict: “Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information.” The charge stated in context is “involuntary manslaughter”—not suicide, or assisted suicide; so even if the DWD patient method was illegal in CA, yet the patient would not be an actual victim of manslaughter (he would be an “alleged victim”). And especially with the FBI sting making the DWD method legal in CA, there is certainly no legal basis for the patient being an actual victim of manslaughter.<br /><br />We may not be able to positively verify all 12 of these points (such as the towel on the face); however, as I said already, we should take things at “face” value—unless there is good evidence that someone is lying. And in this case, all 12 evidences support the same simple conclusion; no need for any fancy back-flips, or complicated explanations. {see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor}<br /><br />I am not listing the following as one of the twelve evidences, but La Toya did give a very clear clue less than ten minutes after TS first posted the DWD evidence: “What is everyone doing with the left overs?” {https://twitter.com/latoyajackson/status/272069763553964033}<br /><br />And clear back in March of 2010 (Update #4), TS said: “… Or there was a real human corpse, which had recently died.” Notice that I did not mention a corpse in cold storage for a long time; and DWD fits exactly with a patient who had “recently died.”<br /><br />If all of this is merely the result of MJ trying to create an illusion, that it was a DWD patient—when in reality it was a dummy or live MJ—what would be the purpose? Can someone with an active imagination come up with a far-fetched explanation, for this slight possibility? No doubt. However, can anyone come up with solid evidence to support this idea—which is based neither upon imagination, nor upon far-fetched explanations? Not likely.<br /><br />Oh, and one last very important point: almost all of these 12 evidences support the hoax theory, and do not support the literal murder theory.<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /><br /> :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley:<br />
<br /><br />Well, as I've always thought they've used a corpse, I prefer to take your words at face value TS.<br /><br />edit: if I am wrong, so be it.<br />
<br /><br />Answers were given by TS with its arguments. Using a patient DWD, is simple and applicable to the hoax, and in fact, we "challenges" to present solid evidence against this theory. If there already have been filed, or not?<br />The debate continues, and if TS can be misleading or not, I do not know, that might only be that the theory of using a patient DWD, does not fit the image we have of MJ, or religious beliefs or simply not agree.<br />We may never know our power was truly like desarrolo of deception, but even if the FBI was the executor. For my theory is accepted from the beginning, and TS says I rest my case. :bearhug:
<br />@BTC .... So I don't see how questioning TS is undermining him or anyone supporting a different viewpoint, I find that much is learned from debate, for both 'sides'. <br />
<br /><br />I never said that questioning TS is undermining him....he, himself, has always told us to do so. We should question everything...my point was that we should not only question if info is false, but also if it's true. Sure, there's always the possibility that he's 'misleading' us...but if that's the only reason to doubt the theory, then the doubt is NOT based on the info but instead on the one providing it. It's the info that should be questioned, IMO, not the messenger....and not with personal opinions but rather with evidence that contradicts the info provided.<br /><br />Perhaps I just see things differently because to me this was never about a 'debate' or about being on one 'side' or another....I saw it as working together, as a team, to try to figure out as best we could, all we could. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br /><br />I see it as working together as well, debating various theories is a part of that or else we would've all agreed on a theory years ago. Not everyone is going to see things the same or take something at face value, and that's not suggesting you are, that's just the way it is. The fact that TS might be misleading us is not my only reason for doubting the DWD theory. Some of the evidence is shaky at best but same with some evidences for the live MJ/dummy theory. My point was it can go either way and I do question everything, especially lately. And you're right, you didn't say questioning TS is undermining him, I didn't word what I read correctly. I just haven't seen anything undeniable yet. A vague FBI involvement to answer the unexplainable details doesn't sit right, curls is right about it being a sort of cop-out clause so that's one reason why I question some of the evidence TS (and others) have presented. I will accept whatever happened that day, I just hope one day we'll know. You know what I mean? <br />
<br /><br />@Andrea...thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts...and I DO know what you, and others, mean. The discussions we've had on the forum over the years...many sparked by 'paths' TS alluded to but also 'paths'/ideas/contributions from many members here, have been amazing...and I completely agree that 'us' disagreeing on certain things along the way was perfect (if we all agreed, then perhaps we wouldn't have dug as deep as we did). And still, we don't all agree even now.<br /><br />I'm 'ok' with the corpse theory....not because TS supported it or 'confirmed' it (I was 'ok' with it long before he did)....but because of all the research that was done over the years by many. As with every theory...the 'evidence' will only take us so far, since we are limited with what we 'know'. That's when 'logic' IMO kicks in and things either 'logically' make sense or they don't. To me, based on everything we do 'know', the corpse theory logically makes sense....and one of those 'dots' IS the FBI involvement. So much so that, in my mind, if there is no FBI involvement then the corpse theory wouldn't make as much sense as the other options. IMO, the FBI connection is not vague (the targets of the 'sting' might be...but not their involvement---there has been a lot of 'evidence' pointing to their involvement, mixed in with some 'logic' showing that they are helping Mike)....nor is it a 'cop-out'. <br /><br />Having said that, though, I wouldn't say I'm 100% sure that's what happened lol...there's always a little room for doubt. What I am 100% sure of is that the 'script' has, and is, calling for it to look like a DWD/hospice patient DID play a role on June 25th. So, I'm left wondering WHY if it's not what happened? The only thing I can think of (and as others have mentioned)...is that it's the most 'controversial' option and 'they' want to throw us off so that we'll be totally surprised by what really happened. Still, that doesn't explain all the 'dots' along the way....both evidence and logic based....that DO point to the corpse theory.<br /><br />I guess all we can do, at this point, is wait and keep watchin'...'the truth will prevail in time'. I am ready for just about anything lol....the only thing I'm not ready for, is nothing happening.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />First of all, THANK YOU TS, for posting...At this point DWD does make sense as the main barrier, that is 'legalities' has been cleared. <br /><br />So the essence of your post is...<br /><br />- a dwd patient used.<br /><br />- FBI actively involved in the sting.<br /><br />- A sting not just an artistic one, involves serious criminal investigation.<br /><br />- FBI and MJ shared their responsibilities in setting up this hoax.<br /><br />
<br />TS:<br />
However, in some case, it’s true that I actually do not know for sure what happened; I said very early, that I don’t know everything about the hoax. And in this case, I do not know exactly what the FBI agents told the DWD patient—nor does MJ himself know, for that matter. And most likely, the FBI is not going to disclose those kind of details to anyone.
<br /><br /><br />If the FBI did 'say' anything to the DWD patient (which would probably relate to the hoax/sting, i guess), wouldn't that again violate CA law? Because the FBI is actually talking with this patient regarding the hoax/sting.<br /><br />Another point which i have raised earlier, some pages ago.<br />It's not guaranteed (at this point) that these DWD patients are Michael fans or admirers who would 'willingly' want to assist in the hoax, and be of a great help/significance in helping MJ and FBI in accomplishing their mission.<br />This DWD patient might also be any other guy, believing the media lies on Michael. ok If not Michael, why would the patient want to assist the FBI in carrying out their mission.<br />As it is not stated anywhere that the patient willingly agreed to be a part of the hoax, it gives room for the speculation that FBI might have convinced this patient to co-operate with them...This can violate the CA Law, as they would be providing 'advice'.<br />
<br /><br />could anyone answer this for me....i posted this couple of days ago...
<br />@ BTC - I think once we understand the WHYs involved in the hoax, the HOWs will finally fall in to place, making perfect sense. For the most part it's like we've been doing the reverse, trying to figure out the hows without knowing the whys. Until we have a better understanding, we'll keep watchin'! I'm ready for anything with you my friend...hopefully it doesn't come down to nothing. :errrr: <br /><br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to talk through this with me and explaining your thoughts as well, I appreciate it and I appreciate you. :icon_e_smile:
<br />1. I highly doubt that TS is only playing with us right now! There's no tIME left for games and for "lessons" now!<br />
<br /><br />@Sim, one could argue that this is the ideal time to 'play' with us - to cause the very disturbance that is now apparent .... before the climax! Can't be having us all quietly sitting here drumming our fingers! But I'm not going to labour the point! What happened happened, what will be will be. My thoughts, and those of anyone else here, make not one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.<br />
<br /><br />I don't think he's only playing with us.. but I do believe we should expect some playing!! :icon_razz: :icon_razz:<br /><br /><br /><br />"Let me (bathe/breathe?) in my own time and I'll come back in. I'll button my shirt, jacket, or whatever this is. I'm gonna look around a little bit, play with them, snap my fingers maybe, and then bam!" :icon_cool:
@Andrea...I completely agree and can't wait to 'know'/understand the WHY's!<br /><br />And I appreciate you as well, very much so!<br /><br /> :bearhug:<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br /> And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.
<br /><br />If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?<br /><br />
<br /><br />Could anyone who believes TS_comments and supports the DWD patient theory explain this supportive evidence that he presented? Can anyone make sense of this? If a dummy is a viable ' emergency plan C', then why is it necessary to use a real person who just died at all?<br /><br />Also, why did this person need an alleged date of death if they really did die on 6/25/09?<br /><br />Also, lastly but not at all leastly...<br /><br />can anyone hypothesize why Front posted this gif while anticipating TS_comments about to reveal the "Truth" once-and-for-all proving that a DWD patient gave his life for MJ's hoax?<br /><br />
on 1354234278:
<br /><br />
<br /><br />Enjoying the show, smiling and eating popcorn..? News about a DWD patient dying isn't entertainment. I do not agree that all the dots connect.
<br />Answers were given by TS with its arguments. Using a patient DWD, is simple and applicable to the hoax, and in fact, we "challenges" to present solid evidence against this theory. If there already have been filed, or not?<br />The debate continues, and if TS can be misleading or not, I do not know, that might only be that [size=18pt][size=12pt]the theory of using a patient DWD, does not fit the image we have of MJ, or religious beliefs or simply not agree.[/size][/size]<br />We may never know our power was truly like desarrolo of deception, but even if the FBI was the executor. For my theory is accepted from the beginning, and TS says I rest my case. :bearhug:<br />
<br /><br />I have no problem with that. The DWD patient perfectly fits my image of MJ and even my religious beliefs. Bible describes many hoaxes that were for a good cause.
<br />First of all, THANK YOU TS, for posting...At this point DWD does make sense as the main barrier, that is 'legalities' has been cleared. <br /><br />So the essence of your post is...<br /><br />- a dwd patient used.<br /><br />- FBI actively involved in the sting.<br /><br />- A sting not just an artistic one, involves serious criminal investigation.<br /><br />- FBI and MJ shared their responsibilities in setting up this hoax.<br /><br />
<br />TS:<br />
However, in some case, it’s true that I actually do not know for sure what happened; I said very early, that I don’t know everything about the hoax. And in this case, I do not know exactly what the FBI agents told the DWD patient—nor does MJ himself know, for that matter. And most likely, the FBI is not going to disclose those kind of details to anyone.
<br /><br /><br />If the FBI did 'say' anything to the DWD patient (which would probably relate to the hoax/sting, i guess), wouldn't that again violate CA law? Because the FBI is actually talking with this patient regarding the hoax/sting.<br /><br />Another point which i have raised earlier, some pages ago.<br />It's not guaranteed (at this point) that these DWD patients are Michael fans or admirers who would 'willingly' want to assist in the hoax, and be of a great help/significance in helping MJ and FBI in accomplishing their mission.<br />This DWD patient might also be any other guy, believing the media lies on Michael. ok If not Michael, why would the patient want to assist the FBI in carrying out their mission.<br />As it is not stated anywhere that the patient willingly agreed to be a part of the hoax, it gives room for the speculation that FBI might have convinced this patient to co-operate with them...This can violate the CA Law, as they would be providing 'advice'.<br />
<br /><br />could anyone answer this for me....i posted this couple of days ago...<br />
<br /><br /><br />Hi Thriller,<br />The way I see this, the primary issue for the DWD person is their leaving this world behind. If the FBI presented options to this person as to the where/when of doing this while ascertaining theri continued wish to be be DWD patient, and they CONSENT, and take the prescribed medications to overdoes themselves as is required, I do not see this as providing "advice". <br /><br />So we have a DWD who wants to leave this world. We separately have the FBI with a need for a body to be identified as Michael JOSEPH Jackson. And we have a collaboration which results in both outcomes.
@bec...good points! And, trust me, I have a few questions too about the corpse theory...just maybe different ones lol. I'll give my interpretation of 2 of your points....as for the 'alleged date', your guess is as good as mine (I'm not sure how that fits...but, much like everything else, I realize that just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean there isn't an explanation).<br /><br />As has happened many times in the past, I think sometimes we misinterpret what is being said...not just what TS says but also each other. <br /><br />TS:<br />
<br />And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.
<br /><br />Notice what TS is comparing here....which is indicated AFTER the 'than', as with any instance of comparing two things. He did NOT say "no greater risk than using a real body/corpse/DWD patient". I interpret his statement as meaning IF they had to switch to Plan C....a dummy would have been no greater risk than what WE had already outlined as the risks in using one. Not sure if that makes sense.<br /><br />As for Front's post...of course, it would be best for him to answer that. But, despite 'thinking' that a DWD patient was used, many of us WERE excited about TS' upcoming post. I don't think anyone, including Mike/Front/TS, would be 'excited' about a corpse....and I don't think that's what Front's excitement was about. I think the focus of the excitement was that Level 7 was about to come to a close....and he was perhaps enjoying our reactions/anticipation.<br /><br />Again, this is just my interpretation and of course, I may be completely wrong lol. I do, however, think that many times we impose our interpretation of stuff TS says, when in fact he either said or meant something completely different. Kinda like with him ending it with a quote that he 'may' play devil's advocate. Some interpret that as meaning he still might be, even now with the DWD theory....but it can also be interpreted as him telling us that he never said he would, only that he 'may', since this was mentioned a few times by a few members.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br /><br />As has happened many times in the past, I think sometimes we misinterpret what is being said...not just what TS says but also each other. <br /><br />TS:<br />
<br />And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.
<br /><br />Notice what TS is comparing here....which is indicated AFTER the 'than', as with any instance of comparing two things. He did NOT say "no greater risk than using a real body/corpse/DWD patient". I interpret his statement as meaning IF they had to switch to Plan C....a dummy would have been no greater risk than what WE had already outlined as the risks in using one. Not sure if that makes sense.<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Oh yes, I agree, the devil is in the details and the details are in the second part of that sentence, as you rightfully pointed out, the portion of the sentence after the "than". I said something about that part earlier and I'll just quote myself:<br /><br />
If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?
<br /><br />TS_comments said this in conjunction with "proving" the DWD theory, as in; here are the 3 layers of protection for using a DWD patient ("use", ugh). 3 layers of protection: layer one, first DWD patient-->he drops out last minute, bring in layer two, 2nd DWD patient-->he drops out last minute as well, bring in layer 3, a dummy?? Huh?<br /><br />If TS_comments does not agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy option carries "no greater risk" then why did he include it in his own layers of protection in an attempt to prove his theory?<br /><br />I wouldn't use "proof" I didn't agree with/didn't make sense to me when trying to validate a theory. At least not if I wanted it to be seriously considered. That would be sloppy investigative work and to say the least, TS_comments never struck me as sloppy.<br /><br />Using logic, TS_comments does agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy carries "no greater risk" then a DWD patient, else he would not have used it to support his theory. Further use of logic causes me to continue to question this "Truth" that a DWD patient was involved in MJ's hoax, I'll explain. If a dummy could replace a DWD patient then this means that a real person's body was not necessary for success of the project. And if it wasn't necessary... why would they go through the trouble of involving this alleged additional person? Why would they go through the trouble of ensuring this person died with a timing that supported the numerology when using a dummy was a viable option?<br /><br />I think we are being constantly redirected purposefully and I think this is part of, if not the point of, the game.
I don't see the problem with a DWD patient. The patient was dying, and was going to die soon. If the patient was going to agree to participate in the DWD program, then maybe they wanted to help Michael out. Michael explained to them the reason for hoaxing his death and the person agreed to it. Michael/FBI would NOT have forced the DWD patient to do this, obviously. They could've easily said no.
<br /><br />As has happened many times in the past, I think sometimes we misinterpret what is being said...not just what TS says but also each other. <br /><br />TS:<br />
<br />And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.
<br /><br />Notice what TS is comparing here....which is indicated AFTER the 'than', as with any instance of comparing two things. He did NOT say "no greater risk than using a real body/corpse/DWD patient". I interpret his statement as meaning IF they had to switch to Plan C....a dummy would have been no greater risk than what WE had already outlined as the risks in using one. Not sure if that makes sense.<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Oh yes, I agree, the devil is in the details and the details are in the second part of that sentence, as you rightfully pointed out, the portion of the sentence after the "than". I said something about that part earlier and I'll just quote myself:<br /><br />
If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?
<br /><br />TS_comments said this in conjunction with "proving" the DWD theory, as in; here are the 3 layers of protection for using a DWD patient ("use", ugh). 3 layers of protection: layer one, first DWD patient-->he drops out last minute, bring in layer two, 2nd DWD patient-->he drops out last minute as well, bring in layer 3, a dummy?? Huh?<br /><br />If TS_comments does not agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy option carries "no greater risk" then why did he include it in his own layers of protection in an attempt to prove his theory?<br /><br />I wouldn't use "proof" I didn't agree with/didn't make sense to me when trying to validate a theory. At least not if I wanted it to be seriously considered. That would be sloppy investigative work and to say the least, TS_comments never struck me as sloppy.<br /><br />Using logic, TS_comments does agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy carries "no greater risk" then a DWD patient, else he would not have used it to support his theory. Further use of logic causes me to continue to question this "Truth" that a DWD patient was involved in MJ's hoax, I'll explain. If a dummy could replace a DWD patient then this means that a real person's body was not necessary for success of the project. And if it wasn't necessary... why would they go through the trouble of involving this alleged additional person? Why would they go through the trouble of ensuring this person died with a timing that supported the numerology when using a dummy was a viable option?<br /><br />I think we are being constantly redirected purposefully and I think this is part of, if not the point of, the game.<br />
Agreed 100%, hesoutamylife.<br /><br />I don't question the DWD theory because of ethics or morality, several others have echoed the same sentiment repeatedly. I don't know how many different ways those of us who are questioning this can say that. There's seems to be a fixation on questioners having an issue with the morality of DWD and it is distracting from the real debate (/conversation/discussion). <br /><br />The morality is not in question. The logistics of the theory are.
<br /> And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.
<br /><br />If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?<br /><br />
<br /><br />Could anyone who believes TS_comments and supports the DWD patient theory explain this supportive evidence that he presented? Can anyone make sense of this? If a dummy is a viable ' emergency plan C', then why is it necessary to use a real person who just died at all?<br /><br />Also, why did this person need an alleged date of death if they really did die on 6/25/09?<br /><br />Also, lastly but not at all leastly...<br /><br />can anyone hypothesize why Front posted this gif while anticipating TS_comments about to reveal the "Truth" once-and-for-all proving that a DWD patient gave his life for MJ's hoax?<br /><br />
on 1354234278:
<br /><br />
<br /><br />Enjoying the show, smiling and eating popcorn..? News about a DWD patient dying isn't entertainment. I do not agree that all the dots connect.<br />
<br /><br />Bec I think you have misunderstood Front's gif because he posted it before TS started to explain us why DWD patient could fit in the hoax, Front posted his gif just after Adi asked: "Still no TS?<br />Maybe he is waiting for the right time to post...like 11:29 ?" Check it on page 127, and after some of us were asking about Mr. Joe Jackson's stroke (on the other thread) where somebody wrote something like: please Michael give us a sign that your father's stroke is not true and he is doing well, so that's why I understood that Front's gif with himself eating popcorn and smiling was due to he was enjoying while reading our posts where we were expecting TS' replies so badly, so this way he was confirming us that Mr. Joe Jackson was doing well and haven't had any stroke, IMHO (forgive me Michael if I am wrong and it has been true your father's stroke). <br />
Comments