Souza, I did say it was finished *in my opinion* with the info we have thus far. I also said it just wasn't wrapped up by TS.<br /><br /> And thanks Purelove, your english is actually quite perfect .
I should probably just bow out because I am having a hard time settling on how conjecture and speculation can and should override visual information. I don't agree with this but I'll just keep it to myself going forward. It isn't helpful for me to keep saying the same things over and over, I understand. I don't think it's working backwards but I certainly don't want to be seen as a roadblock to the rest of the team.
Bec, what you call "speculation and conjecture" has actually been confirmed by the family and TS, who we believe is an insider right? Unless you don't believe we can trust everything they say, which in that case doesn't leave us with much to go on.<br />That speculation being that MJ went to the airport way before etc.<br /><br /> What you also call "visual information" is what exactly? We saw on June 25 what appeared to be a huge distraction and things that made us question his death, but nothing that said "MJ is alive in front of us!".<br /> We do afterall, need a foundation to build off of and the only supporting evidence of the MJ Live theory was debunked (MJ sitting up, MJ was there because he was the star etc.). TS asked for evidence or supporting strong points to show MJ WAS there that day taken in the ambulance. So far I haven't seen or heard evidence to support it but quite the contrary. Along with that theory, the 'nothing, dummy and live double' theories have been debunked with logical backing evidence too. Until any theory can be supported with evidence it should be considered debunked. Just like if someone doesn't like a theory, they should state reasons that hold weight in a court of law versus mere opinions. This is the principle that we were told to use because it works, and people still don't utilize it enough.<br /><br /> I don't want my opinion as to what I feel happened that day to thwart your investigations, so if that's what you believe than by all means keep on posting your theories. You are not a "roadblock", but I considered us going backwards for the simple reason that the Live MJ theory had no supporting evidence thus, it was debunked. Also, the coroner van and everything else was being brought up again that was not asked of us to figure out.<br /><br /><br /> The court proceeding was real and serious because it involved a sting operation to catch the real criminals, which is what a sting is for. And in this case, the serious matter of using a corpse makes sense for many reasons. <br /><br />
<br /><br /> I don't want my opinion as to what I feel happened that day to thwart your investigations, so if that's what you believe than by all means keep on posting your theories. You are not a "roadblock", but I considered us going backwards for the simple reason that the Live MJ theory had no supporting evidence thus, it was debunked. Also, the coroner van and everything else was being brought up again that was not asked of us to figure out.<br /> <br />
<br /><br />@ bec... just remeber what you proved when you set out to prove that O2 MJ was an imposter.... (yes i have read all the old threads )<br /><br />dont stop. you might be looking at the very thing others are overlooking.
Maybe we should try to focus on whether or not all of the paramedics are 'in on it' or not (particularly Blount). I think that was one of the last things TS asked us to do. I don't have time to find his post about it right now because I have a final exam in a few hours errrr but if someone could find it and quote it here I would appreciate it.
<br />Maybe we should try to focus on whether or not all of the paramedics are 'in on it' or not (particularly Blount). I think that was one of the last things TS asked us to do. I don't have time to find his post about it right now because I have a final exam in a few hours errrr but if someone could find it and quote it here I would appreciate it.<br />
<br /><br />The question is WHY would Blount talk to a fan expressing "doubts". <br /><br />He was the one who "recognized" Michael at Carolwood, yet he contradicts himself by saying "that wasn't Michael" on the stretcher. :shock:<br /><br />I smell a "smokescreen"... suspicious//<br /><br />If you want to spread gossip fast, who do you tell?...."the town cryer" (in this case a "faithful fan")<br /><br />You pair together the "sitting up on the stretcher" video clip, Blounts expressed "doubts", the "mystery man" exiting the ambulance last, and you have the solid foundation of a "conspiracy".<br /><br />The 911 call stated "50 year old man"....until they arrived at UCLA it was not confirmed it was Michael (no one saw who came out of the house), Who or What went into UCLA....it was ASSUMED to be Michael.<br /><br />Blount "spilled the beans" to this fan of "who" it was....or did he? :?<br /><br />Blount 100% in....IMO bounce/<br />
<br />Maybe we should try to focus on whether or not all of the paramedics are 'in on it' or not (particularly Blount). I think that was one of the last things TS asked us to do. I don't have time to find his post about it right now because I have a final exam in a few hours errrr but if someone could find it and quote it here I would appreciate it.<br />
<br /><br />The question is WHY would Blount talk to a fan expressing "doubts". <br /><br />He was the one who "recognized" Michael at Carolwood, yet he contradicts himself by saying "that wasn't Michael" on the stretcher. :shock:<br /><br />I smell a "smokescreen"... suspicious//<br /><br />If you want to spread gossip fast, who do you tell?...."the town cryer" (in this case a "faithful fan")<br /><br />You pair together the "sitting up on the stretcher" video clip, Blounts expressed "doubts", the "mystery man" exiting the ambulance last, and you have the solid foundation of a "conspiracy".<br /><br />The 911 call stated "50 year old man"....until they arrived at UCLA it was not confirmed it was Michael (no one saw who came out of the house), Who or What went into UCLA....it was ASSUMED to be Michael.<br /><br />Blount "spilled the beans" to this fan of "who" it was....or did he? :?<br /><br />Blount 100% in....IMO bounce/<br /><br />
<br /><br />Agreed. He's in; so is the Coroner... again the date was 09-09-09 of the autopsy & that weird van vid. AND the three 9's in THIS WEIRD PHOTO we've been discussing again with the messed up date; NO COINCIDENCE. So WHY is that date messed up? What is MJ trying to tell us? It's got to be something important because of the 3 9's.
Maybe, while we wait for TS, these videos can enable us to maintain our purpose here, that being to discover the truth as to what really happened to Michael. <br /><br />I am hoping that those who watch them will feel more grounded and guided in their quest for answers, as I for one often feel overwhelmed by the amount of information and clues we have to deal with on a daily basis. I think we will only progress by continuing to use logic and reasoning combined with a great deal of critical thinking. <br /><br />These videos describe the process used to detect hokum and the pitfalls we as humans fall into when we succumb to emotional wishful thinking.<br /><br />Please do not think that I am in anyway implying that by believing Michael is alive I am accusing people of being "wishful thinkers". I am not, as I believe the evidence to date points 100% to Michael living, and I think the "wishful thinking" tag could as easily be applied to those that believe he is passed. <br /><br />I only ask that we go back with the information we have abundantly available to us now and apply further critical thinking methodology to it, from the persons who provide it, to it's content. <br /><br />I must also do this bow/ to every single person here. I feel deeply honoured to be a part of this journey.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />I have also made a montage of the quotes most pertinent to me from TS, with help from Bec (my bolding):<br /><br /><br />
TS: Could you please quote or highlight where I said that nothing went to UCLA? I don't think I ever said that, if so it was a typo--or you are misunderstanding something.
<br /><br />
TS:The false theories that I was referring to were one such as these: multiple ambulances, green screen everything in the ambulance videos, the two videos were taken on different days, MJ sitting up in the stretcher, riding the helicopter, jumping out of the coroner van, etc.<br />The supposed differences in these videos are no better than the supposed differences in the ambulance videos. They are angle and lighting, etc. For example the green door: some thought that one video the door was dull, and therefore old paint (at the LA coroner's garage); but the other video was a shiny green door, indicating a new paint job (RTL trying to copy the LA coroner garage). The reality is merely a different angle, one angle the light is reflecting off of the door, and the other angle it is not reflecting.<br />Also, very early after that video came out, it was shown that the license plate had the wrong font--did not match the real LA coroner van. I really don't plan to spend much time on this, but again thought I would reply since it keeps popping up. Maybe someone in the LA area can take a tour of the coroner's facility, and see the differences and report it back here. But it is not MJ, and not LA coroner's garage; if so, I am Tom Sneddon!
<br /><br />
Quote from: bec on November 29, 2011, 04:30:28 PM@TS, <br />if MJ was concerned about the Illuminati making a hit on him, we can rule out the death hoax completely for the exact reason you stated, once he is "dead" to the world, the Illuminati could make a hit on him with 100% assurance that NO ONE would be suspicious. He's already "dead", so he could be effectively removed in very clean, very organized, orderly fashion. MJ would know this, being the genius he is, and would have stayed SOLIDLY in the public eye FOREVER to make sure it didn't happen. To drop out of sight would be very dangerous.<br />TS:<br />You might have a good point here, IF the ONLY reason for the hoax was his own safety. But it is not; there are several very important reasons. So the question is which is safer: going to the hospital, or getting out of town?
<br /><br />
TS:.... I’m going to be giving further evidence about one of the reasons why MJ did not go to the hospital<br />There was a real enemy, with a real intent to kill the person who “died”; and the plan of the illusionist included not only saving the life of the potential victim, but also exposing the criminal.
<br /><br />
TS: Remember this statement, which I made at the beginning of this thread: “Start with the fewest people possible in on it, which would actually be zero and no hoax (MJ really died); and then work backwards from that point—changing nothing from the no hoax scenario, except what is NEEDED to be changed in order to accomplish the hoax.I already gave you an example with the ambulance: if MJ really died, then the ambulance came to Carolwood and went to UCLA on June 25, 2009. Don’t change that for the hoax, unless there is a need for it to happen on a different day. And use this same principle, in putting all the pieces together”
<br /><br />
TS: It is important that we understand 7a correctly, because it’s a solid foundation upon which we can build to find the answer for the main question in 7b (what went to the hospital in the ambulance?). For example, since the video events really happened on 6-25-09, we need to start thinking about all the people who were already at the residence (before any LAFD arrived)—were they ALL in on it? If so, why? And if not, what would keep them from finding out (and spilling the beans)?
<br /><br />
TS: MJ's ORIGINAL plan was to NOT go to the hospital, because of the POSSIBILITY that someone MIGHT leak the hoax (which would be a risk whatever his plan was, but especially IF his plan was to go to the hospital--therefore, that was not his plan).
<br />Does this mean MJ had to change his plan?<br /><br />
TS: Well, looks like the "nothing went to UCLA" can be thrown in the trash bin. There is clearly something/someone on the stretcher. Yes, that is one strong point against the nothing theory. And we also have the testimony of Sharon Sidney, so that is two strong points. A third strong point is the nothing theory would require ALL of the paramedics in on the hoax (which nobody has offered even ONE strong point, that I know of, much less two or three). And it would also require ALL of the UCLA staff who worked the situation, to be in on it. Again, why have so many in on it?
<br /><br />
TS: Also, I am not saying that MJ found out that they were planning to get him that day. Rather, I'm saying he knew that there was a general threat out there (and had been there for a long time); and IF someone in the hoax leaked his plans, it would be an unnecessary risk to go to the hospital (and also escape from the hospital, with a lot of people around--not all of whom you can trust).Yes, there was also risk while getting away in a plane, and afterwards; but much less people needed to know about the specifics of the getaway, than the people in on the hoax. You can't eliminate all risks, but you can minimize them.
<br /><br />
TS: The house staff being told to leave before the ambulance makes me think there was something they weren’t meant to see on that stretcher. They needed the least amount of people in the house before the stretcher left the house.
<br /><br />
TS: EXACTLY! It is coming together now, as I said it would. As soon as you realize that the things in the videos actually happened on 6-25-09, then the pieces start falling into place.
<br /><br />
TS: Second, there are several strong points why MJ did not go to UCLA at all on 6-25-09 (which I have already started discussing at the beginning of 7b, and will be going into much more detail shortly). Obviously, if MJ was not on that stretcher going into UCLA, then MJ did not sit up while riding on the stretcher.I will also be debunking the living double theory soon, which means that no living double sat up, either.
<br /><br />
TS: Sorry if I seemed ruffled. I am not angry at anyone, but it is a little frustrating when the grand solution to every problem is merely "well, they are in on it".
<br /><br />
TS: There are quite a few such theories floating around, and they all need to be thoroughly debunked for once and for all—so that we can see the simplicity of doing everything as real as possible, other than the very few things that required otherwise (such as the ambulance photo).
<br /><br />We are first and foremost an investigators site. With or without TS, lets keep up the good work people! michael-jackson/<br /><br />L.O.V.E to all<br /><br />
This is why I am still stuck on the LiveMJ theory. TS is full of (seemingly on the surface) double talk. You have to read what he says very carefully. <br /><br />Excellent quote selection, Heartsong.
Exactly bec. TS words his posts in a way that can "say" one thing but mean another, reading between the lines.<br /><br />I've been thinking more about the Live MJ theory, the biggest objection seems to be risk/safety.<br /><br />Posing a couple relevant questions here - was there more or less risk appearing on Larry King as Dave Dave? Michael showing up at his own Memorial and funeral as hatman? And this latest hatman appearance on X Factor?<br /><br />While Michael was in the ambulance en route to UCLA, how many people were watching? <br /><br />And yet how many people watched the Memorial, have seen the funeral footage, saw DD on LK and watched the latest X Factor? <br /><br />There seems to be a theme of hiding in plain sight.<br /><br /><br />
<br />This is why I am still stuck on the LiveMJ theory. TS is full of (seemingly on the surface) double talk. You have to read what he says very carefully. <br /><br />Excellent quote selection, Heartsong.<br />
<br /><br />Didn't TS suggest you to take his words at face value? Or something like that?
"TS: MJ's ORIGINAL plan was to NOT go to the hospital, because of the POSSIBILITY that someone MIGHT leak the hoax (which would be a risk whatever his plan was, but especially IF his plan was to go to the hospital--therefore, that was not his plan). "<br /><br />This is the only post of TS that could suggest a words game. Could be interpreted both ways.
And this is because I have been giving MJ’s real message, including the serious aspects; and I have NEVER said it was only a movie, or only a sting on the fans and media.
<br /><br />You make comments like this TS... and it makes me want to read between the lines. It is a movie, and it is a sting on the fans and the media... isn't it? <br />
<br /><br />If you will accept a straight answer: yes, but not ONLY these things! And if you don't accept a straight answer, then what else can I say? Well, maybe 7c will also make it clearer.<br />
<br /><br />TS went on and on and on about how some of us are asleep and not paying attention and how he's been talking about the Illuminati and the NWO and the conspiracy to commit murder for many months and etc etc... and buried in that long rant is this quote I plucked out and confronted him with. See the above convo.<br /><br />TS has NEVER said it was a fan sting. The Fan sting was a hypothesis I used to link Back's rants on MJJC in 2009 to the "fake" lyrics controversy fallout in 2010.
And this is because I have been giving MJ’s real message, including the serious aspects; and I have NEVER said it was only a movie, or only a sting on the fans and media.
<br /><br />You make comments like this TS... and it makes me want to read between the lines. It is a movie, and it is a sting on the fans and the media... isn't it? <br />
<br /><br />If you will accept a straight answer: yes, but not ONLY these things! And if you don't accept a straight answer, then what else can I say? Well, maybe 7c will also make it clearer.<br />
<br /><br />TS went on and on and on about how some of us are asleep and not paying attention and how he's been talking about the Illuminati and the NWO and the conspiracy to commit murder for many months and etc etc... and buried in that long rant is this quote I plucked out and confronted him with. See the above convo.<br /><br />TS has NEVER said it was a fan sting. The Fan sting was a hypothesis I used to link Back's rants on MJJC in 2009 to the "fake" lyrics controversy fallout in 2010. <br />
<br /><br />outing the conspiracy the main reason behind DH. in the meantime, by products include, sting, movie, revealing juducual system, medical system, media lies, etc etc...
The point is if I had taken TS at first impression face value I would have disregarded the fan sting theory months ago because he has never supported it. Now suddenly he comes out and confirms it in the middle of a rant that on the surface seems to be against theories like this, and against those of us who support them.
so true. one word comes to mind when thinking of TS and his posts... Enigma...<br /><br />As per wiki: An enigma is a type of riddle generally expressed in radical or allegorical language that requires ingenuity and careful thought for its solution.<br /><br />suits him to a T !! respect/
<br />Speaking of enigmatic answers.<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />[color=rgb(64, 0, 64)]Quote from: chappie on November 28, 2011, 01:22:08 AM[/color]<br /><br />[color=rgb(64, 0, 64)]Quote from: TS_comments on November 27, 2011, 09:55:43 PM[/color]<br />So did the Illuminati outthink him? Or did he outthink them, AND FLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY HOURS BEFORE THE KICKOFF TIME? Just in case the answer to that question is not self-evident, Jermaine made it crystal clear in his “airport” slip/clue. But I’ll save the details on that for another post.<br /><br /><br /><br />Why ask the question if you gave the answer.....<br /><br /><br />A thought question, rhetorical question.<br /><br /><br /><br />[color=rgb(64, 0, 64)]Quote from: chappie on November 28, 2011, 01:22:08 AM[/color]I have a question for you TS....after all this time...<br />After all you are starting to give some answers so why not this one.... <br />Is it correct that Dave Dave on LK was not the real Dave Dave....<br />But a guy that was supposed to be in a coffin at that time?<br />You dont have to send a making of vid or pic....<br />Just a simple YES or No would do it after 2 years....<br /><br /><br />I haven't touched this because I don't want people to accept what I say merely because I say it. I would have to get into a long debate over the evidence, which I do not think is worth the time.<br /><br />I do agree, however, that it does not look like the real Dave Dave on LKL. Nevertheless, it could've been an MJ double. And I don't want to spend the time arguing over whether it was a double or the real MJ.
<br /><br /><br />Reminds me of an interview when MJ was much younger, the question was about dealing with the crush of fans, paps and invasions into his privacy. His response seemed loaded with secrets, "Oh, I've learned how to handle that." Like he developed a plan to be fully in control at all times. He's learned how to deal with situations and answer questions with riddles, mystery and giving out drops of precious info at a time (making each drop worth a fortune).<br /><br /><br />I do think that his several reasons to support MJ going to the airport are weak. There seems as much risk being knocked off in-flight or distant hiding places--since someone could have leaked that sensitive info. He said the info that MJ had gone to the airport and Jermaine's airport slip-up were known early on, and I think that could easily have been for a tactic to throw would-be assassins off his trail, who would then be scouting out the airport leads, places he could be hiding around the world. Meanwhile he could be hiding in plain sight somewhat safer, close to home and kids. There is also huge safety in TS insisting that he went to the airport, since if we are discussing it here, there could be enemies also reading this as well. <br /><br /><br />The problem I see with not taking TS's answer at face value, is it means there is no bedrock truth for understanding the hows and whys of the hoax.<br />Bec, if you did maneuver him into saying it was a sting on the fans, I would be surprised. It seems he's extremely careful about covering his tracks to make sure he doesn't accidentally say too much.<br /> mj_bad/ <br /><br /><br /><br />I can't figure out if TS is saying DD is MJ or not. I keep re-reading it but maybe someone else can read which way he's leading us to. :? bangbang
Ok, I’m just trying to think outside the box a bit. TS said that MJ was definitely not in the ambulance going to UCLA. Just forget the going to the airport alternative for a minute. In the 7 frame gif of the unloading of the stretcher at UCLA, TS explained that the guy we thought was sitting up on the stretcher was really walking or standing on the other side of it, and we see his legs briefly behind the others. Now either he’s photoshopped in, or he really is there. We obviously can tell he looks like MJ with the same pony-tail style hair. Why would an impersonator be there at all? If it was MJ, this would require the EMT and all there at the loading bay to be in on it. It could have been him they were all trying to protect from view with all the jackets held up, since the stretcher was probably covered by a sheet anyway. <br /> <br />Earlier at Carolwood, the guy that looks like MJ in the yard also has his hair in a pony. Could this also be MJ, who then left in another vehicle from a different Carolwood exit, beating the slow ambulance to the hospital? That way MJ could be there with the corpse, directing up till the ambulance left? TS made a note of the staff needing to be gone before the stretcher was brought downstairs in the house. Andrea noted how few people were at the Emergency bay, and we’ve also noted that it seems impossible for all those guys wheeling in the stretcher to have come from that ambulance. Could some have been dropped off just before (including MJ)? LaToya emphasizes illusions, what the left hand is doing and the right. TS has really tried to get us to focus on who/what was in that ambulance, and if there were 2 days or 2 ambulances.<br /><br />Thoughts?
<br />Could some have been dropped off just before (including MJ)? <br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]Keeping in mind that this video was edited so that what actually happens "first" is in the middle of this video...<br />at 1:45 you will see a pony-tailed man in an all dark blue uniform walk past firetruck 71. A small white truck passes this man, and then the man continues to walk into the Carolwood driveway area towards the open gates (where you can see a glimpse of the back of the ambulance inside the gates) then at 1:53 the Star Tours van drives into the picture and blocks our view of the gates.<br /><br />[/size]<br /><br /> /><br />[size=12pt]In this next video, around :48, is this the same pony-tailed man we see in Ben's "through the gate" video?[/size]<br /><br /><br /> />[size=12pt]<br />Was this pony-tailed man at UCLA?[/size]
I don't see a ponytail on the man in the first video, pepper. In the case of the 2nd video, Ben's "through the gate", that is not a ponytail, it is the camera's resolution trying to make sense of the shadow that falls on the paramedic's collar and between his shoulders. There is another version of this same video floating around the net somewhere that is slightly better quality and you can clearly see he has no ponytail. I'm sorry, I don't have any idea where to find it to show you but I have seen it and there is no question.
<br />Could some have been dropped off just before (including MJ)? <br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]Keeping in mind that this video was edited so that what actually happens "first" is in the middle of this video...<br />at 1:45 you will see a pony-tailed man in an all dark blue uniform walk past firetruck 71. A small white truck passes this man, and then the man continues to walk into the Carolwood driveway area towards the open gates (where you can see a glimpse of the back of the ambulance inside the gates) then at 1:53 the Star Tours van drives into the picture and blocks our view of the gates.<br /><br />[/size]<br /><br /> /><br />[size=12pt]In this next video, around :48, is this the same pony-tailed man we see in Ben's "through the gate" video?[/size]<br /><br /><br /> />[size=12pt]<br />Was this pony-tailed man at UCLA?[/size]<br />
Ok I just wanted to add that I think Randy Phillips is suspicious, but I don't really know in what way. I can't decide if he's helping Michael with the hoax or he's trying to cover some truth that we don't know about.
<br /><br />I know it's not investigative but I wanted to post this here. TS (or Front geek/) is the dove in this picture, our dear messenger, bringing light through the veils. <br /><br />All the pieces of the puzzle will come together in the end family. Peace to all of you.
Comments