<br />It's not photoshopped. I forget what they call that in photography but I think it's a short exposure. Basically it's a short focus, focusing on only one subject (or line of subjects) in a 3D plane. Excellent for showing depth and catching sharp detail. It's usually used with subject or portrait photography, not typically used in journalistic settings.<br /><br />Which, in itself, might mean something come to think of it.<br /><br />If you used this exposure in a forest you would only see A tree clearly.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />With "photoshopped" I mean that some effects were added to it. Only the middle part is sharp, while all the other parts of the photo are completely blurred. Blurring is an effect you can add to a picture to emphasize a special part in it. Just look at the chair on the right and the head behind it. You can draw a fine line between the two parts of the picture. If this was an optical blur, then you'll find a part that goes smoothly from blurred to sharp. This part is missing in the photo. If we assume that this blurring is supposed to draw our attention to the guys in the middle, then those guys should be of some kind of importance. They are "actors" in my opinion.
Just some relevant TS comments made over the years. <br /><br />
on 1291188615:
<br />I have titled this post update #6.5 (not update #7), because this is primarily a continuation of update #6. And yes, it’s also because I said that update #7 will probably be after BAM.
<br /><br />
on 1274321237:
We are now coming up on the third time, when there is a good opportunity for a bam (Halloween and January in the past, now maybe June or July). Like the other times, one main factor (though not the only factor) is how prepared we are for the stampede after bamsday. There are still many hoax believers on MJDHI and other forums, who don’t read the updates and/or don’t think that NWO & EOW is MJ’s message. If we keep waiting for them to inform themselves, they probably never will. But those who do read these updates can help, if you want to: will you be there? If so, read on.
<br /><br />
on 1268567056:
Since MJ is in control: he could have several pieces revealed all in one day; or he could slow the process down, and do it over a longer period of time (until people start getting it)—in either case, the return would end with the bam (the final and ultimate revelation that MJ is alive).
<br /><br />
on 1284101956:
As stated in Update #6, Update #7 probably will not be before bamsday.
I wasn’t sure where to post this, so I am posting in both threads -- this one and the Back and Front thread: <br /><br />By the way -- have you guys noticed our dear TS’ typing style?<br /><br />“assUME”<br /><br />“timE”<br /><br />Now compare this to Front’s typing style of the same words :suspect: :<br /><br />“ASSume”<br /><br />“tIME”<br /><br />TS’s writing is “Back to Front” :thjajaja121:<br /><br />
<br />California is known as a "two-party" state, which means that recordings are not allowed unless all parties to the conversation consent to the recording.<br /><br />Under Penal Code § 632(c), "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.<br />http://www.bc-llp.com/Legal-Guides/Illegally-Recording-a-Conversation.shtml<br /><br />A movie needs signatures from "actors".<br />A true trial doesn't.A fake trial means entrapment / avoidance of signatures except if entrapment can safely be excluded by other obvious indicators.<br /><br />Add. Fake trial = avoidance of signatures of consent to recordings but:<br /><br />The Production of Illegal Recordings During Discovery<br />Although generally not admissible at trial, illegal recordings are discoverable as they could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As such, if a recording is responsive to discovery requests, it should be timely produced. Otherwise, if it is later discovered that the recording was not produced and was intentionally withheld, severe discovery sanctions may be imposed. Counsel should carefully analyze whether production is appropriate. If a recording is responsive and is produced, counsel should advise their clients to seek advice of criminal counsel as there may be criminal implications and the potential need to assert the 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination.<br /><br />Generally, under California Penal Code § 632(d), an illegally recorded conversation is inadmissible in any court proceeding. However, California courts have carved out exceptions to this blanket exclusion in both civil and criminal actions.<br />http://www.bc-llp.com/Legal-Guides/Illegally-Recording-a-Conversation.shtml<br /><br />-> Reads to me like:<br />If a criminal counsel analyzes that an illegal recording production is appropriate, witness "actors" may be recorded without any consent.<br />If authorities request a recording for collecting evidence that could not be collected otherwise (FBI etc.), witness "actors" may be recorded without any consent - even in a fake trial.<br />
<br /><br />Perhaps the "oaths of silence" everyone was said to have signed were actually agreements to appear as witnesses at this trial and keep their mouths shut about it.
<br /><br /><br /><br />And now (drum roll) … we are at the final level—level number 7! (7 represents completion). Now it’s time to take everything that we have learned so far (in the previous levels, etc), and put the last few pieces of the puzzle into place.<br /><br />This is the final frontier for the hoax; the “when’s” and “why’s” have already been thoroughly established, especially through the numerology—and more than a year has gone by, without anyone even making a serious attempt to claim the $999 reward. Therefore, the only frontier left is the “how’s” of the hoax, which is exactly what we have been going through in the levels; and this is the last of the levels, therefore we are now entering the conclusion of the final frontier—THIS IS IT!<br /><br />The previous levels were not a waste, because without them we would not be where we are now. Much of the research has already been done, and some of the pieces have already come together (just like the picture above); but we still have a few major areas that need completed (just like the picture above). As I have said already, the minor details on the “how’s” are not very important (and may never been fully understood); however, for more than one reason, the major aspects of the “how’s” should be resolved.<br /><br />For example, level 3 never really got resolved (who or what, if anything, went to UCLA in the ambulance?). I am confident that this will be resolved, though, before the end of level 7. Another major area, that keeps popping up unresolved, is the idea that the ambulance was at Carolwood and UCLA on some day other than 6-25-09; and closely related is the fairly common idea that two or more ambulances were used (supposedly different lettering, reflector, wrong shadows, etc).<br /><br />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). There would be no need whatsoever to be running ambulances and firetrucks around town, on one or more days before 6-25-09, like kids playing with their toys. It would only create numerous opportunities to raise suspicions, at the least. Also, to NOT have the ambulance at Carolwood and then UCLA on 6-25 would be another sure fire way to raise major suspicions.<br /><br />The ambulance photo needed to be staged in advance, because of the great difficulty getting a good picture through the window “on the fly”; and if you missed the one chance, you would not get another. But staging that photo in advance would not raise public suspicion, if it was done indoors.<br /><br />Also, some seem to think that the ambulance picture was generated from nothing, in good-old “Photoshop”; but the reality is, no matter how good you are at Photoshop, you don’t just start from nothing and end up with a high resolution photograph (like the ambulance photo). Staging the ambulance photo gives you the basic picture(s) to work from; and then you can modify it with Photoshop (such as adding the car reflection, by taking a separate photo of the car, and then layering it in Photoshop with some transparency).<br /><br />So I want to start this level by debunking all the false theories about the ambulance (such as more than one ambulance, or it went to UCLA on a different day, etc). There is little point in discussing who or what went to UCLA on June 25 in the ambulance, if we’re not even sure whether the ambulance itself went to UCLA on June 25 2009! I need your help bringing all these theories to this thread, whether you believe in them or not; but please read all the posts in this thread before posting one of these theories, and make sure that it’s not a repeat of the same basic theory already discussed and debunked. Also, anyone can help out in the debunking process as well; this will help us get to the end faster.<br /><br />8-)<br /><br />Once that is done (level 7a), we’ll move on to level 7b; I probably won’t start a new thread, but I will post a picture in this thread of another puzzle piece put into place. Level 7b will be who or what went to UCLA on June 25, 2009. When that is resolved, I will post another step in the puzzle pieces coming together; and we will finish this level with 7c, which will be any further details about the FBI, sting, and court. When level 7c is done, I will post a picture of the completed puzzle.<br /><br />penguin/<br /><br />At this point, I’m going to give you a couple of real good pointers, which should help you as we go through this final level. 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 />Last but not least, here is a real good statement from bec, which she posted in my recent thread about the timing of the 911 call (12:20 or 12:21?). Keep this concept in mind, because it applies to far more than just the 911 call. “One good reason I can think of doing an actual call that day (not 911, just a call) is for realism later. It’s very easy to keep up appearances if what you are talking about actually happened. Alvarez’s testimony and statements, Murray’s statements on this documentary, they can be describing an actual staged scene as opposed to just a figment of imagination. Recalling an actual event would give their statements a sense of realism, instead of them simply reciting lines.” {http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/smf2.0/index.php?topic=21289.msg370203#msg370203}.<br />
<br /><br />Btw, we only got one puzzle piece, for 7a. We apparently never settled on who or what went to UCLA on June 25,2009, and we never even scratched the surface of 7c.
Thanks bec for those TS quotes. This comment:<br /><br />
Since MJ is in control: he could have several pieces revealed all in one day; or he could slow the process down, and do it over a longer period of time (until people start getting it)—in either case, the return would end with the bam (the final and ultimate revelation that MJ is alive).
<br /><br />So does this possibly mean the bamsday was NOT pre-determined going into the hoax? Or that HOW he bams is based (to a certain degree) on people's understanding of the hoax? Or am I reading that wrong? Considering the hoax is also an ARG, maybe the return will be based on the interactions of the players and can explain TS's role as well.
You could read it that way, Andrea. But who knows. In regards to the oft repeated connection to Year Zero, part of what TS says is fabricated and fits into a fictional aspect of all this. In part, at least, this is a game, therefore not real. The trick is to figure out what part, and how much.
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). There would be no need whatsoever to be running ambulances and firetrucks around town, on one or more days before 6-25-09, like kids playing with their toys. It would only create numerous opportunities to raise suspicions, at the least. Also, to NOT have the ambulance at Carolwood and then UCLA on 6-25 would be another sure fire way to raise major suspicions.
<br /><br />This is one of the reasons that I cling to the Live MJ theory. Coupled with bec's comments - “One good reason I can think of doing an actual call that day (not 911, just a call) is for realism later. It’s very easy to keep up appearances if what you are talking about actually happened. Alvarez’s testimony and statements, Murray’s statements on this documentary, they can be describing an actual staged scene as opposed to just a figment of imagination. Recalling an actual event would give their statements a sense of realism, instead of them simply reciting lines.” - it DOES create realism by actually going through the motions - the witnesses/actors aren't lying about what they "witnessed", whether they ever thought it was real or not. <br /><br /> I still think that having MJ there gave him an almost total control over the situation, whereas if he jetted off, something may have come up that wasn't anticipated and MJ would've been helpless to do anything if he was on a plane. Yes, he would have had someone he trusted to take care of things but still. And anybody who NEEDED to be in on it, would've had to be in on it whether MJ was there or not. If someone who wasn't privy to it saw something (like MJ's leg move,etc) then there was the report that MJ was still alive at UCLA to cover that. <br /><br />I just think the arguments to debunk that theory are weak and not in any way conclusive. I don't mind if I'm totally wrong about this because I honestly just want to know how it went down, like everyone else here. <br /><br />
I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br /><br />TS is probably :Pulling_hair: right now at us, Andrea, (& curls too) because we just won't get with the damn program!<br /><br />This is ARG, TS, therefore there is a fictional aspect. I seek to find that because in finding that, what's left is, by default, the TRUTH. I have a feeling the keys to deciphering one from the other is buried in your words, because you, sir, are NOT a liar.
<br />I wasn’t sure where to post this, so I am posting in both threads -- this one and the Back and Front thread: <br /><br />By the way -- have you guys noticed our dear TS’ typing style?<br /><br />“assUME”<br /><br />“timE”<br /><br />Now compare this to Front’s typing style of the same words :suspect: :<br /><br />“ASSume”<br /><br />“tIME”<br /><br />TS’s writing is “Back to Front” :thjajaja121:<br />
<br /><br />Indeed! :abouttime: <-- I just wanted to insert the "thinker-smiley" but this also appropiate and just in TIME ;-)
<br />I believe TS and the BAM has gotta be this year 2012. <br /><br />Both front and TS coming back surely isn't a coincidence. <br /><br />Here's TS quote on the August 17th update. <br /><br />It will also be in the year 2012, which we all know by now is a major year in MJ’s hoax (“four years” from 2009, and 911 call at 12:21, FBI files, etc). Of course even if there is an Elvis BAM: he would not be performing again, or even seen in public (other than maybe at Graceland next year). Now I am not saying with any certainty that Elvis will BAM on 8-16-2012; but I am saying that if he ever does, that would be a very likely time. Anyone who has read his book knows that Jesse himself would like the general public to know the truth {http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/smf2.0/index.php/topic,16148.0.html}; but he has pressure from family, and especially EPE.<br /><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!
TS <br /><br />"If you check the closed caption on the TII DVD, you should find the spelling of "four" and NOT "fore". There is, of course, an interesting four year connection from 2005 to 2009; but four years forward (inclusive) is primarily what is being referred to: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Also, Paris just verified the year 2012 on her Twitter--which my next redirect will be about, stay tuned. bounce/"
Another TS post, TS you are a genius mate!<br /><br /><br /><br />My last post was 12 days ago; and in that post I stated: “for certain that MJ will BAM before the end of 2012”, {TIAI August 17, http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/smf2.0/index.php?topic=20134.0}. In that post I also mentioned, for the very first time, the Twitter account for Paris. A few days after my post, La Toya verified her account once again {
}.<br /><br />And then, one week later, we had yet another colossal coincidence! The very same person that TS referred to (Paris), retweeted on the very same subject of that last post (2012 and BAM): “Everyone thinks dinosuars are extinct I bet they are just playing an epic game of hide & seek & then..when 2012 hits BAM! DINOSAUR INVASION” {
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/smf2.0/index.php/topic,18330.msg351117.html#msg351117}.<br /><br />Would real dinosaurs actually play a “game”, and intentionally “hide” (and we should “seek” them)? Are we supposed to conclude that Paris really believes there will be an invasion of literal dinosaurs in 2012? :? :?: :roll: And if not, then what could this possibly mean—other than the obvious!?!<br /><br />Everyone thinks dinosaurs (giants in music, MJ and Elvis) are extinct (dead); but I bet they are just playing an epic (look this word up) game (ARG) of hide (fake death) & seek (hoax investigation) & then … when 2012 hits BAM (everyone who thinks that these giants are dead, will find out that they are NOT dead)! Could it be any clearer???<br /><br />This means that we should not expect any BAM before the trail—and yes, there will be a trial. I can’t guarantee that there won’t be any more delays; but at this point, any further delays will most likely be short compared to the previous delays.<br /><br />Instead of MJ receiving a birthday present, this year he gave a present to his hoax family (a "giant" BAM clue, through Paris). “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:35).<br /><br />I finished my last post with this 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!” And now I will finish this post with the following statement, “If MJ does not BAM by January 1, 2013: then you may know that Paris is a fake informer—and even La Toya, since she verified the pariisjaxn Twitter account more than once.”
<br />I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br />
<br /><br />This is not what I understand. Here TS is answering Souza and this is Souza who is first talking about Michael’s "original plan" and it seems to me that in his answer TS talks about the original plan in order to reinforce the notion that it was not Michael’s intent to be present at the hospital even from the preparation stages. He ends by saying that it wasn't his plan: "therefore, that was not his plan". <br /><br />
<br />I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br /><br />TS is probably :Pulling_hair: right now at us, Andrea, (& curls too) because we just won't get with the damn program!<br /><br />This is ARG, TS, therefore there is a fictional aspect. I seek to find that because in finding that, what's left is, by default, the TRUTH. I have a feeling the keys to deciphering one from the other is buried in your words, because you, sir, are NOT a liar.<br />
<br /><br />Yep, agreed. Hope you're not really losing hair over this TS but you do word things in a way that can sometimes say one thing and mean another.<br /><br />Like this:<br /><br />TS<br />
In this post, I’m going to be debunking the theory that MJ sat up in the stretcher. ... First of all, we do NOT have two or three evidences indicating that MJ sat up ...
<br />I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br /><br />TS is probably :Pulling_hair: right now at us, Andrea, (& curls too) because we just won't get with the damn program!<br /><br />This is ARG, TS, therefore there is a fictional aspect. I seek to find that because in finding that, what's left is, by default, the TRUTH. I have a feeling the keys to deciphering one from the other is buried in your words, because you, sir, are NOT a liar.<br />
<br /><br />Yep, agreed. Hope you're not really losing hair over this TS but you do word things in a way that can sometimes say one thing and mean another.<br /><br />Like this:<br /><br />TS<br />
In this post, I’m going to be debunking the theory that MJ sat up in the stretcher. ... First of all, we do NOT have two or three evidences indicating that MJ sat up ...
<br /><br /><br />What I keep asking myself is if wanted he's plan to go right with no hitch, then why couldn't he 'die' at the house, there was no need to go to UCLA, was there? The only significance was the time (2:26).<br /><br />I do still think however MJ was on the stretcher in the helicopter and the ambo, what's to say he wasn't. Doesn't it outweigh the risks to have MJ himself play dead?
<br />I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br /><br />TS is probably :Pulling_hair: right now at us, Andrea, (& curls too) because we just won't get with the damn program!<br /><br />This is ARG, TS, therefore there is a fictional aspect. I seek to find that because in finding that, what's left is, by default, the TRUTH. I have a feeling the keys to deciphering one from the other is buried in your words, because you, sir, are NOT a liar.<br />
<br /><br />Yep, agreed. Hope you're not really losing hair over this TS but you do word things in a way that can sometimes say one thing and mean another.<br /><br />Like this:<br /><br />TS<br />
In this post, I’m going to be debunking the theory that MJ sat up in the stretcher. ... First of all, we do NOT have two or three evidences indicating that MJ sat up ...
<br /><br /><br />What I keep asking myself is if wanted he's plan to go right with no hitch, then why couldn't he 'die' at the house, there was no need to go to UCLA, was there? The only significance was the time (2:26).<br /><br />I do still think however MJ was on the stretcher in the helicopter and the ambo, what's to say he wasn't. Doesn't it outweigh the risks to have MJ himself play dead?<br />
<br /><br />According to some reports, MJ DID 'die' at Carolwood but Murray refused to call it. Why go to UCLA? Probably to create 'realism' for public perception and really, it's a much more interesting storyline. Going to UCLA created - the staged ambulance photo, emotional family scenes at the hospital (allegedly), the bizarre 'death' announcement by Jermaine and Tohme Tohme instead of a UCLA/public official, crowds in the streets, action-movie shots of the helicopter ride...the list goes on.
Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...<br /><br />...well ok TS, how 'bout that? Having Murray refusing to pronounce MJ dead and insisting on going to UCLA via ambulance is probably THE RISKIEST SCENARIO in which to fake your death short of an actual public death (run over by car outside greeting fans or something), that's about as public as it gets, so we could use your "supportive evidence" right back against you and say, ok fine it's too risky to have MJ himself go to UCLA, so why would That exact Scenario get written into MJ's script at all? It's a huge rats nest of potential problems (risk!) and invites scores more people in (more risk!) who have to be either A) directly fooled in the first person or brought in on the hoax, so really, you just debunked the whole hoax right there. MJ must be dead because MJ the cautious yet daring genius that he is, would never paint himself into a corner like this. He is limited only by his imagination when choosing how he will die and he chooses this?? Seems unbelievable if he's concerned about someone "spilling the beans".<br /><br />Ps. TS, can you tell that I've missed you? :icon_bounce:<br />
Thanks Paula for posting those FBI bodyguards pics. :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Bec<br />
Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...
<br />At the time he said it, I remember thinking what a lame excuse that was... :icon_bounce: :icon_lol:<br />And do you think this is also a game of Bluff, between TS and us, as well as an ARG, like a poker game?<br /><br />TS<br />
Level 7b will be who or what went to UCLA on June 25, 2009.
<br />I still think it was a hospice patient on life support, though MJ was close at hand (in there like a dirty shirt) disguised as some other key person. Elvis’ hoax scenario could give clues, since Elvis says the doctor might have had to pull the plug early on the hospice patient to accommodate the hoax timing, but Elvis stayed hidden in the house while the drama outside with the public went on. Also just a note, that one of the charities for Michael Bush's book on MJ's clothes is a Hospice Center.<br /><br />At 2:01:35, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYu-P92ILDE<br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,23442.msg426869/topicseen.html#new<br />
<br />According to some reports, MJ DID 'die' at Carolwood but Murray refused to call it. Why go to UCLA? Probably to create 'realism' for public perception and really, it's a much more interesting storyline. Going to UCLA created - the staged ambulance photo, emotional family scenes at the hospital (allegedly), the bizarre 'death' announcement by Jermaine and Tohme Tohme instead of a UCLA/public official, crowds in the streets, action-movie shots of the helicopter ride...the list goes on.<br />
<br /><br />A public location supports a hoax for several reasons. UCLA is an ideal locations to provide better view for the media chaos, more space to greet spectators, a favorable infrastructure, a closeup to create barrier and taboo / mystery at the same moment, all just fine to bring up all kinds of questions. A hospital adds drama and emotional involvement, too. Edutainment needs some education about the unknown or else it is a home reality show soon to be forgotten. <br />Conversion factor needs hospital. Death is the ultimate taboo. Being left alone is the ultimate existential question.<br /><br />Early news said MJ was brought to Cedars Sinai - early coma news chaos phase. <br />"Police in Los Angeles have blockaded streets around Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."<br />http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2009/06/25/michael-jackson.html<br />This article was updated later, mentioning UCLA.<br /><br />UCLA has a body donation program. UCLA executed a hospital move into new buildings in June 2008, providing free access to the public (and an opportunity to check location details) before opening the new facilities for operation.<br /><br />UCLA was in the news repeatedly for breaching confidentiality and leaking patient information to the media.<br />There were more corruption allegations in the house. Just one:<br />Jackson's hospital known for 'raising the dead' <br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31686168/ns/health-heart_health/t/jacksons-hospital-known-raising-dead/ <br />The same Dr. Gerald Buckberg: <br />UCLA surgeon sued for benefiting from his own charity<br />http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/10/local/me-ucla-professor10<br /><br />The fire drill happened at the cancer hospital near Ronald Reagan MC.<br /><br />Dying at home would have been more than boring and would not have served the purpose at all.<br />Looking back, it all fits very well.
<br />Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...<br /><br />...well ok TS, how 'bout that? Having Murray refusing to pronounce MJ dead and insisting on going to UCLA via ambulance is probably THE RISKIEST SCENARIO in which to fake your death short of an actual public death (run over by car outside greeting fans or something), that's about as public as it gets, so we could use your "supportive evidence" right back against you and say, ok fine it's too risky to have MJ himself go to UCLA, so why would That exact Scenario get written into MJ's script at all? It's a huge rats nest of potential problems (risk!) and invites scores more people in (more risk!) who have to be either A) directly fooled in the first person or brought in on the hoax, so really, you just debunked the whole hoax right there. MJ must be dead because MJ the cautious yet daring genius that he is, would never paint himself into a corner like this. He is limited only by his imagination when choosing how he will die and he chooses this?? Seems unbelievable if he's concerned about someone "spilling the beans".<br /><br />Ps. TS, can you tell that I've missed you? :icon_bounce:<br />
<br /><br />Bec, :th_bravo: this is an amazingly brilliant genius post! :bearhug: And UYI thanks for putting the idea forward - indeed, why the heck was UCLA included at all, if we're talking risk v dramatic storyline? Even the 2:26 time you bring up, is the least important bit of the numbers game, according to TS himself! (Sorry I don't have time right now to find the quote but I read it only yesterday.)
2:26 is one of the least important numbers because it isn't divisible by 111 like all the rest of the numbers in the hoax numerology (333, 666, 777, 999, 1221, 1998).<br /><br />and thanks!
<br />I'm with you Andrea, still, on this subject.<br /><br />TS's attempts to debunk this scenario ARE weak, by his own words, he rejects the theory that MJ was there that day by saying "it was too risky", as in "MJ wouldn't DO that" because it doesn't fit into a preconceived notion held by the theorize-r.<br /><br />And then there's the things he SAYS.<br /><br />
on 1322477679:
<br />
on 1322475878:
<br />... <br />I get what you are saying, but that would mean MJ's original plan was to be on the scene all the way. Or MJ's plan was never being on scene the whole day, because he already knew their plan and therefore leaked false information.<br />
<br /><br />Well, I think you still didn't quite get it.<br /><br />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 /><br />which indicates to me that there was a change of plans because why else refer to "ORIGINAL" plan if there ended up being subsequent plans.<br /><br />TS is probably :Pulling_hair: right now at us, Andrea, (& curls too) because we just won't get with the damn program!<br /><br />This is ARG, TS, therefore there is a fictional aspect. I seek to find that because in finding that, what's left is, by default, the TRUTH. I have a feeling the keys to deciphering one from the other is buried in your words, because you, sir, are NOT a liar.<br />
<br /><br />Yep, agreed. Hope you're not really losing hair over this TS but you do word things in a way that can sometimes say one thing and mean another.<br /><br />Like this:<br /><br />TS<br />
In this post, I’m going to be debunking the theory that MJ sat up in the stretcher. ... First of all, we do NOT have two or three evidences indicating that MJ sat up ...
<br /><br /><br />What I keep asking myself is if wanted he's plan to go right with no hitch, then why couldn't he 'die' at the house, there was no need to go to UCLA, was there? The only significance was the time (2:26).<br /><br />I do still think however MJ was on the stretcher in the helicopter and the ambo, what's to say he wasn't. Doesn't it outweigh the risks to have MJ himself play dead?<br />
<br /><br />According to some reports, MJ DID 'die' at Carolwood but Murray refused to call it. Why go to UCLA? Probably to create 'realism' for public perception and really, it's a much more interesting storyline. Going to UCLA created - the staged ambulance photo, emotional family scenes at the hospital (allegedly), the bizarre 'death' announcement by Jermaine and Tohme Tohme instead of a UCLA/public official, crowds in the streets, action-movie shots of the helicopter ride...the list goes on.<br />
<br /><br />Well if you look at the scene;<br /><br />MJ going to UCLA = risky, more hoax players, more realism and Michaelish (interesting storyline)<br />MJ dying at Carolwood = less risky, less hoax players, less interesting<br /><br />But...there is still a way for MJ to 'die' at Carolwood with the storyline being just as interesting and realistic. You can still keep the rest of the storyline but change the story before/during when MJ 'died' into something more mysterious/interesting. Jermaine could have still made the announcement, crowds will still be able to show, family emotion would still be able to be seen (maybe at the Morgue). So instead of MJ going to UCLA, he could just go to the Morgue, it's still probably a lot safer then going to a public hospital with so many risky factors and of course he'd have to go somewhere after he 'died' then to just leave a dead body in the house, I think we can establish that. So regardless if MJ died at Carolwood he would still have to be taken away.<br /><br />
on 1351135049:
<br />Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...<br /><br />...well ok TS, how 'bout that? Having Murray refusing to pronounce MJ dead and insisting on going to UCLA via ambulance is probably THE RISKIEST SCENARIO in which to fake your death short of an actual public death (run over by car outside greeting fans or something), that's about as public as it gets, so we could use your "supportive evidence" right back against you and say, ok fine it's too risky to have MJ himself go to UCLA, so why would That exact Scenario get written into MJ's script at all? It's a huge rats nest of potential problems (risk!) and invites scores more people in (more risk!) who have to be either A) directly fooled in the first person or brought in on the hoax, so really, you just debunked the whole hoax right there. MJ must be dead because MJ the cautious yet daring genius that he is, would never paint himself into a corner like this. He is limited only by his imagination when choosing how he will die and he chooses this?? Seems unbelievable if he's concerned about someone "spilling the beans".<br /><br />Ps. TS, can you tell that I've missed you? :icon_bounce:<br />
<br /><br />Exactly. <br /><br />Also this hoax is full of numerology, the date of death, Elvis connections etc. But MJ going to UCLA and Murray insisting that he be taken there has no real significance in my opinion. MJ was driven to UCLA and pronounced dead then, but any other place, hospital, morgue etc. would be just as efficient. What is so important about UCLA, why was Murray so adamant about UCLA? Is it just part of the storyline or does it mean something else? In my opinion I do not see how MJ going to UCLA fits in, it makes no sense to me that MJ would do this, when there is NO reason to.<br /><br />
on 1351139798:
<br />Thanks Paula for posting those FBI bodyguards pics. :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Bec<br />
Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...
<br />At the time he said it, I remember thinking what a lame excuse that was... :icon_bounce: :icon_lol:<br />And do you think this is also a game of Bluff, between TS and us, as well as an ARG, like a poker game?<br /><br />
<br /><br />LOL, yep lame-O :icon_geek: Well MJ was reported as going to UCLA, everyone was there, the ambo arrived there etc. I don't think this is a game between TS and us. First and foremost the whole point of this hoax are the points TS gave us, EOW, NWO etc. It will be too risky to factor us in to the death hoax story with the UCLA issue. TS has played his little ARG and games with us in so many other ways i.e making us think for ourselves etc. so I don't think so, it would be too risky and anyway 25-6-2009 was a bluff, meant to fool all of us, or indeed like it has, most of us.<br /><br /><br />
on 1351145374:
<br />
on 1351135049:
<br />Hey yeah, good point, UYI, thanks. TS keeps saying how MJ didn't go to UCLA that day because it would be too risky, and yes everything has risk but that would be the RISKIEST scenario of all...<br /><br />...well ok TS, how 'bout that? Having Murray refusing to pronounce MJ dead and insisting on going to UCLA via ambulance is probably THE RISKIEST SCENARIO in which to fake your death short of an actual public death (run over by car outside greeting fans or something), that's about as public as it gets, so we could use your "supportive evidence" right back against you and say, ok fine it's too risky to have MJ himself go to UCLA, so why would That exact Scenario get written into MJ's script at all? It's a huge rats nest of potential problems (risk!) and invites scores more people in (more risk!) who have to be either A) directly fooled in the first person or brought in on the hoax, so really, you just debunked the whole hoax right there. MJ must be dead because MJ the cautious yet daring genius that he is, would never paint himself into a corner like this. He is limited only by his imagination when choosing how he will die and he chooses this?? Seems unbelievable if he's concerned about someone "spilling the beans".<br /><br />Ps. TS, can you tell that I've missed you? :icon_bounce:<br />
<br /><br />Bec, :th_bravo: this is an amazingly brilliant genius post! :bearhug: And UYI thanks for putting the idea forward - indeed, why the heck was UCLA included at all, if we're talking risk v dramatic storyline? Even the 2:26 time you bring up, is the least important bit of the numbers game, according to TS himself! (Sorry I don't have time right now to find the quote but I read it only yesterday.)<br />
<br /><br />Yes it is, just realized it when you said that and when Bec mentioned it wasn't divisible by 111, so it is the least important.<br /><br />Also I can't get my head around the scenario. So TS asked us, who went to UCLA, if anything. But regardless of who went, what went or if MJ went, you would still come up with the same thing...it is damn risky, the more I look at it, the more it looks really sloppy and not required and MJ is anything but sloppy.
Comments