Well yes, Sarahli, we were supposed to prove that statement is the most likely truth; methodically and in organized fashion, by debunking the most common (or all) alternative theories that could be presented. I think we satisfied the objective. Does anyone disagree?
<br />Well yes, Sarahli, we were supposed to prove that statement is the most likely truth; methodically and in organized fashion, by debunking the most common (or all) alternative theories that could be presented. I think we satisfied the objective. Does anyone disagree?<br />
<br /><br />Yes and I agreed with most of what you have said concerning this subject. I think that it's what makes most sense when considering all the comments and thoughts so far.
Can we now come to the consensus that there was no dead body? I think it's been proven there would be too many complications and risks involved with an actual corpse. This is a thriller, yes, but not necessarily all the way morbid.<br /><br />I'm on board with bec and those who think similarly. I've been all over the place with what I've been thinking these last 2+ years of hoaxing but in doing so, I (and others) have sometimes over-complicated the theories as to what happened that day.<br /><br />What I'm unsure of is exactly how WE (the hoaxers) have been hoaxed. FBI? Maybe, but there is still the 333 pages from 7 files (with 111 pages withheld in the first file) intended for release on 12/21/09. That's what gets me when I try to reason the FBI is NOT involved. Plus their documents show his middle name is Joe and when the FBI refer to Michael as being dead, they use Joseph as the middle name. I concede there may not be a sting but there is still at least someone in the FBI who knows something, or is helping. I do not think this is unreasonable. <br /><br />I don't think Ben's slip-up ("other day") was meant to trick us as we've determined (I think) that the photo must've been taken on another day to get the desired shot.<br /><br />Was Michael there that day is my big question. Or did he slip off to the airport? Did he necessarily have to jet out of the country? We've "seen" him sit up in the stretcher and in the helicopter. We've seen him jump out of the back of the coroner's van, from the "de-bunked" video that was released on August 25/09. If Michael WAS NOT there in the ambulance, hospital, helicopter ride, coroner van - then a dummy would make sense but I am really thinking that Michael actively took part in his hoax and was there every step of the way. The key people already knew it was not real and his security would be assured and with all the chaos and confusion surrounding the events of that day, it would be almost easy for him to be right there, hiding in plain view. <br /><br />Sorry if I was repeating anybody but I agree we need to come together on a solid theory that makes the most sense.<br /><br />
What I'm unsure of is exactly how WE (the hoaxers) have been hoaxed. FBI? Maybe, but there is still the 333 pages from 7 files (with 111 pages withheld in the first file) intended for release on 12/21/09. That's what gets me when I try to reason the FBI is NOT involved. Plus their documents show his middle name is Joe and when the FBI refer to Michael as being dead, they use Joseph as the middle name. I concede there may not be a sting but there is still at least someone in the FBI who knows something, or is helping. I do not think this is unreasonable.
<br /><br /><br />All that makes me think...<br />Witness Protection Program... how would this come into play?<br />And would the FBI be in on the hoax if Michael is in the WPP?
What I'm unsure of is exactly how WE (the hoaxers) have been hoaxed. FBI? Maybe, but there is still the 333 pages from 7 files (with 111 pages withheld in the first file) intended for release on 12/21/09. That's what gets me when I try to reason the FBI is NOT involved. Plus their documents show his middle name is Joe and when the FBI refer to Michael as being dead, they use Joseph as the middle name. I concede there may not be a sting but there is still at least someone in the FBI who knows something, or is helping. I do not think this is unreasonable.
<br /><br /><br />All that makes me think...<br />Witness Protection Program... how would this come into play?<br />And would the FBI be in on the hoax if Michael is in the WPP?<br />
<br /><br />I don't believe Michael would be put so much time, effort and thought into this hoax just to go into WPP. And if he was in WPP, we wouldn't be investigating this hoax because there would not have been clues left for us to find.
<br />Can we now come to the consensus that there was no dead body? I think it's been proven there would be too many complications and risks involved with an actual corpse. This is a thriller, yes, but not necessarily all the way morbid.<br /><br />I'm on board with bec and those who think similarly. I've been all over the place with what I've been thinking these last 2+ years of hoaxing but in doing so, I (and others) have sometimes over-complicated the theories as to what happened that day.<br /><br />What I'm unsure of is exactly how WE (the hoaxers) have been hoaxed. FBI? Maybe, but there is still the 333 pages from 7 files (with 111 pages withheld in the first file) intended for release on 12/21/09. That's what gets me when I try to reason the FBI is NOT involved. Plus their documents show his middle name is Joe and when the FBI refer to Michael as being dead, they use Joseph as the middle name. I concede there may not be a sting but there is still at least someone in the FBI who knows something, or is helping. I do not think this is unreasonable. <br /><br />I don't think Ben's slip-up ("other day") was meant to trick us as we've determined (I think) that the photo must've been taken on another day to get the desired shot.<br /><br />Was Michael there that day is my big question. Or did he slip off to the airport? Did he necessarily have to jet out of the country? We've "seen" him sit up in the stretcher and in the helicopter. We've seen him jump out of the back of the coroner's van, from the "de-bunked" video that was released on August 25/09. If Michael WAS NOT there in the ambulance, hospital, helicopter ride, coroner van - then a dummy would make sense but I am really thinking that Michael actively took part in his hoax and was there every step of the way. The key people already knew it was not real and his security would be assured and with all the chaos and confusion surrounding the events of that day, it would be almost easy for him to be right there, hiding in plain view. <br /><br />Sorry if I was repeating anybody but I agree we need to come together on a solid theory that makes the most sense.<br /><br /><br />
<br />I agree that Michael was there the whole time. Like you said, we have "proof" that he was there from various photos/videos. The only proof we have of him going to the airport is a "report" that a section of LAX was closed and there was a flight to an unknown destination, which could be easily fabricated. We also have Jermaine's slip-up which could have been a genuine mistake (I accidentally called a stapler a calculator the other day) or it could have been a clue just for the purpose of 1) getting us to investigate and 2) as a distraction that fits with alternative theories (i.e. like when TS was playing devil's advocate).
<br />[...]Also, please stay on topic as much as possible. SimPattyK, as fun as your montages are, the one you posted on Murray/Michael is [size=12pt]very off topic [/size]and due to the size of the file, quite distracting to the conversation, requiring significant scrolling to get past it. Please refrain from posting your montages here unless they are on topic.<br />[...]
[size=12pt]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![/size]
<br /><br />Even though, TS indeed, indicated to us towards the second part of his message, that we should focus on debating on the "ambulance-theories", I didn't read anywhere that this topic should be exclusively and entirely dedicated to the "ambulance discussion".<br /><br />I understood from TS post that this level is generally about the "HOWs of this hoax", namely for us to figure out and discuss HOW Michael managed to pull off a hoax of such magnitude, since the WHYs and the WHENs had been discussed in the previous levels.<br /><br />Therefore, I think the subject Michael/Murray is not really OFF topic. Unless, of course you decide to discuss exclusively about the ambulance here. Then I promise I won't intervene anymore...
<br />Can we now come to the consensus that there was no dead body? I think it's been proven there would be too many complications and risks involved with an actual corpse. This is a thriller, yes, but not necessarily all the way morbid.<br /><br />I'm on board with bec and those who think similarly. I've been all over the place with what I've been thinking these last 2+ years of hoaxing but in doing so, I (and others) have sometimes over-complicated the theories as to what happened that day.<br /><br />What I'm unsure of is exactly how WE (the hoaxers) have been hoaxed. FBI? Maybe, but there is still the 333 pages from 7 files (with 111 pages withheld in the first file) intended for release on 12/21/09. That's what gets me when I try to reason the FBI is NOT involved. Plus their documents show his middle name is Joe and when the FBI refer to Michael as being dead, they use Joseph as the middle name. I concede there may not be a sting but there is still at least someone in the FBI who knows something, or is helping. I do not think this is unreasonable. <br /><br />I don't think Ben's slip-up ("other day") was meant to trick us as we've determined (I think) that the photo must've been taken on another day to get the desired shot.<br /><br />Was Michael there that day is my big question. Or did he slip off to the airport? Did he necessarily have to jet out of the country? We've "seen" him sit up in the stretcher and in the helicopter. We've seen him jump out of the back of the coroner's van, from the "de-bunked" video that was released on August 25/09. If Michael WAS NOT there in the ambulance, hospital, helicopter ride, coroner van - then a dummy would make sense but I am really thinking that Michael actively took part in his hoax and was there every step of the way. The key people already knew it was not real and his security would be assured and with all the chaos and confusion surrounding the events of that day, it would be almost easy for him to be right there, hiding in plain view. <br /><br />Sorry if I was repeating anybody but I agree we need to come together on a solid theory that makes the most sense.<br /><br /><br />
<br />I agree that Michael was there the whole time. Like you said, we have "proof" that he was there from various photos/videos. The only proof we have of him going to the airport is a "report" that a section of LAX was closed and there was a flight to an unknown destination, which could be easily fabricated. We also have Jermaine's slip-up which could have been a genuine mistake (I accidentally called a stapler a calculator the other day) or it could have been a clue just for the purpose of 1) getting us to investigate and 2) as a distraction that fits with alternative theories (i.e. like when TS was playing devil's advocate).<br />
<br /><br />Jermaine loves to drop clues that this is a hoax, whether or not what he's said is actually accurate or not, like the airport slip-up. I too think that a destination unknown flight record can be faked - for the purpose of raising the question as to whether Michael 'got out of Dodge' before he 'died' because if I remember correctly, the timing of the flight was in the morning before anything kicked off. <br /><br />I think he would want to be right there in the thick of it- this is his hoax and he would want it to go as he envisioned and carefully planned for. Being on a plane and out of the loop as all of this is happening does not make sense.
<br />In my previous post I only wanted to give some structure. <br /> We still rush into believing what we see without questioning enough.<br /> <br /> I am aware of having been tricked many times in this - optically and in mind games. Still I am missing branches in the trees where the cars are parked but I'll put this to rest as yet another optical illusion.<br /> <br /> I think the whole set is pretty simple if we keep it minimalistic, too.<br /> No effect desired - no cause / cast required. <br /> <br /> This makes it:<br />
<br /> [li]one ambulance at Carolwood arriving upon (planted) emergency call[/li]<br /> [li]a (living) body = Michael with Doc Murray in the ambulance[/li]<br /> [li]Michael arriving with Doc Murray at UCLA[/li]<br /> [li]exchange with corpse from UCLA's body donation research program - as of here illusion begins -[/li]<br /> [li]family identifies corpse as Michael -> no DNA check[/li]<br /> [li]body goes to coroner, Michael leaves to ???[/li]<br /> [li]coroner writes report on examination of wrong corpse[/li]<br /> [li]coroner report induces DA activities[/li]<br /> [li]DA activities induce kangaroo court with an elephant in the room[/li]<br /> [li]Doc Murray gets "guilty of man's laughter" verdict[/li]<br />
I excluded the alternative of a body exchange with a non-claimed corpse at the Coroner's morgue because that would be pretty complicated and risky. Michael must have been appearing "dead" = anabiotic at UCLA. This would have been detected by modern intense care monitoring equipment. Too much effort, too many witnesses.<br />
<br /><br /><br />Thank you, thank you Grace! bow/ <br /><br />My thought process is right in line with your post (saves me alot of typing!) <br /><br />So I hope you don't mind if I use yours as a model ::P<br /><br />The body:<br /><br />1) Ambulance leaves Carolwood arrives at UCLA (Michael/Dr. Murray aboard)<br />2) Ambulance gurney enters emergency room (Michael/Murray/EMS/Security etc)<br />3) A corpse from UCLA's body donation research program is prepared for transport<br />4) Donated corpse is airlifted to Coroners via helicopter* <br />5) Donated corpse is shuttled to Coroners via transport van*<br />6) Coroner writes fake autopsy report (collaborated to Michaels specs) <br />7) Coroner findings reported to media--->induces DA activities (Kangaroo court)<br /><br /><br /><br />Yup....that about covers it for me.<br /><br />...(buzz) final answer....(for now) <br /><br />.....time for breakfast & coffee! <br />
<br /><br /> /bravo/ to both of you. Perfect scenario if you ask me. I agree with all you wrote. BUT we shouldn't forget about the body change inside the helicopter. A normal body shape was brought into the helicopter but a flat surfboard looking thing was brought out of the helicopter. And the security belts was not on the body no more when they were taking it out. IF that was the donated corpse inside the helicopter, why did they change it with a surfboard? <br /><br /><br /><br />
@MjonMind: thanks for the link to that video about morphing MJ's face with Murray's... I had seen it too some time ago and I've been trying to find it with no success... thanks again!
<br />I think we can sum up our conclusions for 7a with this quote:<br /><br />TS:<br />
[size=12pt]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.[/size]
<br />
<br /><br />So we should leave Ben's major slip-up "that day and the other da... uhmm" aside? The ambulance was there just on 6-25-09? So we can simply say that the so called ambulance pic was taken when the ambulance was inside the mansion. Then what was the thing that Ben was talking about? Can it be about a meeting that Michael made with him just maybe a day or two days before the 25th? Maybe that was a real slip-up and Ben was talking about the meeting and the photo shooting of the ambulance with "that day and the other d.. uhmm".
<br />[...]Also, please stay on topic as much as possible. SimPattyK, as fun as your montages are, the one you posted on Murray/Michael is [size=12pt]very off topic [/size]and due to the size of the file, quite distracting to the conversation, requiring significant scrolling to get past it. Please refrain from posting your montages here unless they are on topic.<br />[...]
[size=12pt]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![/size]
<br /><br />Even though, TS indeed, indicated to us towards the second part of his message, that we should focus on debating on the "ambulance-theories", I didn't read anywhere that this topic should be exclusively and entirely dedicated to the "ambulance discussion".<br /><br />I understood from TS post that this level is generally about the "HOWs of this hoax", namely for us to figure out and discuss HOW Michael managed to pull off a hoax of such magnitude, since the WHYs and the WHENs had been discussed in the previous levels.<br /><br />Therefore, I think the subject Michael/Murray is not really OFF topic. Unless, of course you decide to discuss exclusively about the ambulance here. Then I promise I won't intervene anymore...<br />
<br /><br />How about creating a new thread about Murray is MJ in disguise and the ones who want to discuss the issue, keep on discussing it there. I'm personally so fed up with this unrealistic fantasy as I tried to explain it many times regarding to my job that Michael can not be Murray in disguise. You guys can still keep on believing what you want but I have to agree with bec that this issue is so off-topic on this thread. You guys wrote that Michael was in Murray disguise and was inside the ambulance. Point taken. Let's move to other theories.
<br />Photo of Murray out of the hospital, ..the June 25? <br /><br />And all these people where they are?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />That first image of Murray - I remember watching that video footage of him outside UCLA and it looked totally fake to me. His body was in the exact same position the whole time, he just got a bit bigger as he kept allegedly walking. I realize some security footage just captures stills and puts them together but it didn't look like Murray moved at all. The footage looked doctored (lol) with Murray's one image being moved forward over and over again. I tried finding this footage but I haven't seen it since that day in the trial.
<br />I think we can sum up our conclusions for 7a with this quote:<br /><br />TS:<br />
[size=12pt]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.[/size]
<br />
<br /><br />So we should leave Ben's major slip-up "that day and the other da... uhmm" aside? The ambulance was there just on 6-25-09? So we can simply say that the so called ambulance pic was taken when the ambulance was inside the mansion. Then what was the thing that Ben was talking about? Can it be about a meeting that Michael made with him just maybe a day or two days before the 25th? Maybe that was a real slip-up and Ben was talking about the meeting and the photo shooting of the ambulance with "that day and the other d.. uhmm".<br />
<br /><br />I do not think that this slip-up was in reference of a possible other day with the ambulance parading in front of the house. Sorry I can't remember just now what it was about but obviously this picture has not been taken on June 25th. So what is the need for 2 days??? Unless a big amount of risks I do not see why.
I was thinking about the reasons of the hoax and I would like to know the opinion of the ones who believe that this hoax is just a movie. Do you guys believe the numerology part of the hoax? IF you believe it, why do you think the date 9.9.9 was so important for Michael? Why did he use and arrange things according to that date?<br /><br />Should I think we should remember what exactly happened on 9.9.9 and 9.9.9 issue? From TS' own update.<br /><br />
[size=12pt]it was 77 days from the “death” on June 25 to 9-9-09; and it was 7 days from the “burial” to 9-9-09. strongest proof of hoax, not murder; and also it very clearly shows one of the main reasons for the hoax: to turn the 666 NWO upside down, 999! It is the Biblical counting system known as “inclusive reckoning”; you must use this system to arrive at 77 days and 7 days to 9-9-09. Everyone knows that the “death” was on 6-25-09, and the “burial” was on 9-3-09. Using inclusive reckoning (shown below): it is 77 days from 6-25-09 to 9-9-09, and 7 days from 9-3-09 to 9-9-09.<br /><br />But MJ chose 2009 as the year, because that year would be three 9’s. Full moon came on 7-7 in 2009, the day of the memorial; it was the first time since 1952 that there was a full moon on July 7, and it won’t happen again for decades {http://fullmooncalendar.net/}. This is another reason for the fake death being in 2009. Furthermore, full moon came also on September 4 in 2009—just one day after the burial! And if you looked at the moon with the naked eye on September 3 (night of the burial): it looked full. Do you remember seeing the full moon in Thriller? And if MJ was really dead, but for whatever reason the family wanted his burial to be on a full moon: then why didn’t they have it on Friday, September 4? There is one very clear reason for all of these things: it’s 7 days (inclusive) from 9-3-09 to 9-9-09!<br /><br />MJ “1998” Autographs<br /><br />1998 is an interesting number, that can be divided evenly by only these single-digit numbers: 1998 / 2 = 999; 1998 / 3 = 666; 1998 / 6 = 333; and 1998 / 9 = 222. If you add 222 (that last one) to 777 (red shirt), you have 999. The first one is 999 itself; and the other two added together equal 999 (666 + 333). Also, if you add the first digit (1) to the last three (998), you have 999 (1 + 998 = 999). And if you add all four digits, it reduces to 9 (1 + 9 + 9 + 8 = 27; 2 + 7 = 9). Even if we had nothing else to go by, just the 1998 alone should point us pretty clearly to 9-9-09; but there is far more. in this case, the arrow is down and would represent the death. But you also have the resurrection here, with the upward pointing caret (^). However, these symbols are part of the equation, as well: start with the 1998, go down (subtract) by 666 = 1332; then insert this answer (caret means insert) into the last part: 1332 / 4 = 333. Of what significance is 333? It is the exact number needed to turn the NWO 666 pyramid upside-down; 666 + 333 = 999!!! In fact, that is why the three digits on the dangerous code are vertical, not horizontal; they represent the vertical layering system of the pyramid (666), and then turned upside down (999).<br /><br />Autopsy Report “9-9-09, Date Finalized”<br /><br />When the report was released, everyone could see that the very last thing on the whole report said: “9-9-09, Date Finalized”. Was this a coincidence? Aside from the 9-9-09 resurrection aspect of the coroner’s report, there are numerous other fishy things. <br /><br />“This Is It” Movie Poster on 9-9-09<br /><br />Although the poster may have surfaced unofficially a little early: it was not posted on the official MJ website, until Wednesday 9-9-09! {http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/michael-jacksons-it-movie-poster}. And remember, this is the poster with about 10 different red shirt pictures—reminding us of the 777 (77 from death to 9-9-09, and 7 from burial to 9-9-09). The movie itself was originally scheduled to open on Friday, October 30; but they moved it to Wednesday, October 28. Notice that 9-9-09 was a Wednesday, and the official opening date was on Wednesday (10-28-09)—exactly 7 weeks after 9-9-09!! Also, the movie was originally scheduled to run for only 2 weeks—which would bring it up to 9 weeks from 9-9-09!!! And from the original Thriller: “… see you next Wednesday!” “The line [‘see you next Wednesday’] is also mentioned in the opening scene for Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ when the police decode a message from Jackson’s werewolf character.”<br /><br />Jermaine and La Toya Supported 9-9-09<br /><br />Jermaine had his MJ Tribute press conference in London on 9-9-09! London??? Yes, London—exactly where “This Is It” concerts were originally scheduled; and also where the O2 press conference was held on March 5, 2009. Two days later, TMZ posted this video of La Toya Jackson Christmas shopping (although posted on the 18th, she did the actual shopping during the “99” redirect). At 0:47, the camera points to a “9.99” price tag for about 5 seconds {http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/18/la-toya-jackson-chris-brown-tiger-woods-target-christmas-holiday-shopping-video/} <br />[/size]
<br /><br />IF this hoax was made just for FUN purposes like a movie and the ARG, then why is making 6 6 6 upside down and the date 9 9 9 was so important for Michael? We have his 1998 autographs, the autopsy reports with 9 9 9 date finalized, Latoya and Jermaine clues on 9 9 9 and TII poster on 9 9 9. I don't know how it could be more obvious but simply Michael was warning us about 6 6 6 which is illuminati! Even if you don't believe illuminati was a thread for Michael, you should believe that he was trying to WARN us against something! Otherwise he could make this hoax movie again and he didn't need to use this much 9 9 9 in it. He wouldn't depend on this particular date this much. There has to be a reason why this number is so important for Michael and I do not think he used it for decoration of the movie only. <br />
<br />[...]Also, please stay on topic as much as possible. SimPattyK, as fun as your montages are, the one you posted on Murray/Michael is [size=12pt]very off topic [/size]and due to the size of the file, quite distracting to the conversation, requiring significant scrolling to get past it. Please refrain from posting your montages here unless they are on topic.<br />[...]
[size=12pt]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![/size]
<br /><br />Even though, TS indeed, indicated to us towards the second part of his message, that we should focus on debating on the "ambulance-theories", I didn't read anywhere that this topic should be exclusively and entirely dedicated to the "ambulance discussion".<br /><br />I understood from TS post that this level is generally about the "HOWs of this hoax", namely for us to figure out and discuss HOW Michael managed to pull off a hoax of such magnitude, since the WHYs and the WHENs had been discussed in the previous levels.<br /><br />Therefore, I think the subject Michael/Murray is not really OFF topic. Unless, of course you decide to discuss exclusively about the ambulance here. Then I promise I won't intervene anymore...<br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]How about creating a new thread [/size]about Murray is MJ in disguise and the ones who want to discuss the issue, keep on discussing it there. [size=12pt]I'm personally so fed up[/size] with this unrealistic fantasy as I tried to explain it many times regarding to my job that Michael can not be Murray in disguise. You guys can still keep on believing what you want but I have to agree with bec that this issue is so off-topic on this thread. You guys wrote that Michael was in Murray disguise and was inside the ambulance. Point taken. Let's move to other theories.<br />
[size=12pt]How about[/size] letting people express themselves instead of telling them to go ?<br /><br />@PureLove: is it really OFF-topic? or is it because you disagree?<br /><br /><br />To me it's just another theory [like so many others discussed here] that tries to uncover [size=12pt]HOW[/size] Michael did it.<br />Whether you agree or not with this theory, it's just another issue, your personal issue. Just skip it, is that so difficult?<br />Why block it off? why send us to another "corner" just because you are personally "fed up" with it?<br /><br />And frankly, I really think that Michael/Murray discussion was over until you and bec reacted to it as being "OFF-topic" according to your subjective opinions. I really didn't want to say anything else about it, I said what I had to say about that theory that MJonMind developed so well and that was it. Until someone else comes up with other arguments to sustain it, I really have nothing else to say about it. So you can remain tranquil about that...<br /><br />But I am still surprised :shock: by the way you limit the expression of others' opinions just because you disagree or because "you're personally fed up" :roll:
<br />I think we can sum up our conclusions for 7a with this quote:<br /><br />TS:<br />
[size=12pt]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.[/size]
<br />
<br /><br />So we should leave Ben's major slip-up "that day and the other da... uhmm" aside? The ambulance was there just on 6-25-09? So we can simply say that the so called ambulance pic was taken when the ambulance was inside the mansion. Then what was the thing that Ben was talking about? Can it be about a meeting that Michael made with him just maybe a day or two days before the 25th? Maybe that was a real slip-up and Ben was talking about the meeting and the photo shooting of the ambulance with "that day and the other d.. uhmm".<br />
<br /><br />I do not think that this slip-up was in reference of a possible other day with the ambulance parading in front of the house. Sorry I can't remember just now what it was about but obviously this picture has not been taken on June 25th. So what is the need for 2 days??? Unless a big amount of risks I do not see why.<br />
<br /><br />Ben used that "slip-up" when he was explaining how he took the ambulance picture as far as I remember. "We were there that day and the other d... uhmm" was his words again as far as I remember. lol
I know Bec said to read the comments and I did but didn't see an answer to my question. Maybe I did miss it, or maybe it's not important, but I wondered if ANYONE ever said they SAW the ambulance GO into Carolwood?<br />Sign lady, fans, paps? <br />Because if they did then if we choose to believe they are not actors, but DID see it go in there that day, it would be helpful in the ambulance theories.<br />If no one around there saw it, then maybe it wasn't GOING INTO Carolwood, maybe it was already there, or maybe it was there another day or on a set. But, if it WAS seen!! Really, ambulances come with sirens ON, so sign lady would've heard it...prob. ran there to see what's up. There are also paps who listen to police band radios, and know Michael's address and would've followed it. NO one saw it GO in there?<br />What about private citizens who listen to police scanners? No one has come forward saying they heard the call into 911??
<br />[...]Also, please stay on topic as much as possible. SimPattyK, as fun as your montages are, the one you posted on Murray/Michael is [size=12pt]very off topic [/size]and due to the size of the file, quite distracting to the conversation, requiring significant scrolling to get past it. Please refrain from posting your montages here unless they are on topic.<br />[...]
[size=12pt]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![/size]
<br /><br />Even though, TS indeed, indicated to us towards the second part of his message, that we should focus on debating on the "ambulance-theories", I didn't read anywhere that this topic should be exclusively and entirely dedicated to the "ambulance discussion".<br /><br />I understood from TS post that this level is generally about the "HOWs of this hoax", namely for us to figure out and discuss HOW Michael managed to pull off a hoax of such magnitude, since the WHYs and the WHENs had been discussed in the previous levels.<br /><br />Therefore, I think the subject Michael/Murray is not really OFF topic. Unless, of course you decide to discuss exclusively about the ambulance here. Then I promise I won't intervene anymore...<br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]How about creating a new thread [/size]about Murray is MJ in disguise and the ones who want to discuss the issue, keep on discussing it there. [size=12pt]I'm personally so fed up[/size] with this unrealistic fantasy as I tried to explain it many times regarding to my job that Michael can not be Murray in disguise. You guys can still keep on believing what you want but I have to agree with bec that this issue is so off-topic on this thread. You guys wrote that Michael was in Murray disguise and was inside the ambulance. Point taken. Let's move to other theories.<br />
[size=12pt]How about[/size] letting people express themselves instead of telling them to go ?<br /><br />@PureLove: is it really OFF-topic? or is it because you disagree?<br /><br /><br />To me it's just another theory [like so many others discussed here] that tries to uncover [size=12pt]HOW[/size] Michael did it.<br />Whether you agree or not with this theory, it's just another issue, your personal issue. Just skip it, is that so difficult?<br />Why block it off? why send us to another "corner" just because you are personally "fed up" with it?<br /><br />And frankly, I really think that Michael/Murray discussion was over until you and bec reacted to it as being "OFF-topic" according to your subjective opinions. I really didn't want to say anything else about it, I had what I had to say about that theory that MJonMind developed so well and that was it. Until someone else comes up with other arguments to sustain it, I really have nothing else to say about it. So you can remain tranquil about that...<br /><br />But I am still surprised :shock: by the way you limit the expression of others' opinions just because you disagree or because "you're fed up" :roll:<br />
<br /><br />This thread's purpose is NOT about discussing if Murray is MJ in disguise Simm. That is the point where you take it off-topic. I talked enough about this fantasy, and not getting in it again. You can keep on talking about it but if a moderator also thinks that it is off-topic for this thread, there is something about it, don't you think? My offer was about creating a place where the ones who are interested to read it can go and discuss it WITHOUT bothering others who want to stay on topic! You can take this like 'limit the expression of others', I take it as 'respecting others who want to stay on topic and do not care about this issue'.
Comments