Does anyone still believe that was MJ climbing out of the coroner's van in the garage, uploaded August 25, with the same date (08/25/09) mistakedly put on the trial's exhibit of MJ autopsy photo. If it was him, that was a ridiculously risky unnecessary thing to do. Or it was just made up by RTL...
MJonmind, the RTL video was made up. <br />Garage in the "making of" and "leaked video" is the same.<br /><br />However the video was made up for a purpose and leaked that day for a reason.<br />Maybe it was one of the many sting rays we have seen to prove how gullible folks are. Even hoaxers.
<br />MJonmind, the RTL video was made up. <br />Garage in the "making of" and "leaked video" is the same.<br /><br />However the video was made up for a purpose and leaked that day for a reason.<br />Maybe it was one of the many sting rays we have seen to prove how gullible folks are. Even hoaxers.<br />
<br />How can you be so sure that the vid was made up? BTW I don't think that man was Michael he looked shorter.
sunset, I studied them inside out, reverse, upside down in those days. <br />A "made believe" Mercure hotel garage in Germany. <br />They manipulated some details in the garage, not only on the van, though.<br />Everything else added (or blurred) in their studios.
<br />MJonmind, the RTL video was made up. <br />Garage in the "making of" and "leaked video" is the same.<br /><br />However the video was made up for a purpose and leaked that day for a reason.<br />[size=14pt]Maybe it was one of the many sting rays we have seen to prove how gullible folks are. Even hoaxers[/size].<br />
<br /><br />Good point. Although the 'van video' seemed to be an experiment, according to this article http://pulse2.com/2009/09/02/german-tv-company-rtl-created-michael-jackson-hoax-video/, it resulted in confusion, suspicion and above all media/web attention, which could fit the hoax time line and purpose to get more beLIEvers, or simply to create curiosity and interest in the hoax. It could have been MJ, I am not sure about that, but may be all will be explained in the hoax movie..who knows :icon_e_wink:
Maybe it was a Wake Up call. Why took RTL so much money in a Video?<br />In the Article from everlastinglove_MJ they say, that was a Hoax Video to show how easy it is<br />to manipulate people, it must be a reason for that. For me, this Day was the Day to wake up.<br />This was the time, to stop my tears from day one, to go into me and hear of my heart.<br />Hoax Video = Hoax Death= thank you MJ <br />I`m awake<br />love
Ooh. What a lil can of worms we have going on in this thread. Glad I stopped by. <br /><br />Re: van footage: Considering RTL is shopped onto the back of bad25, I think its MJ. Although I have always believed this to be MJ and IN FACT this footage was my initial bait into my personal hoax rabbit hole journey. I think it was filmed prior to 25/6 but I think def MJ and that Bad 25 was a confirmation of the theory.<br /><br />Re this other photo. I need to keep looking at this...<br /><br />Pic where he is walking out of the frame to the left, the jacket seems trenchcoat-ish... a) not typical MJ coat, but b) more of a woman's coat / figure (sinched at the waste). Also is that black fleck above the coat a part of his (supposed) hair, or is that a tree shaddow on the guard behind him.<br /><br />Those shoes.... only one person I know who wears those shoes..... (no wait, thats untrue too.... decoys wear those shoes)<br /><br />Thinking out loud and obviously still don't know what it 'is' that I think...<br /><br />
<br />That man with the white or gray suit is not the same as it was with Mrs. Katherine? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I see the man with Mrs Katherine as much bulkier than the person in white in the other photo...... particularly in the legs<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
:smiley-vault-misc-150:<br />The same images once more.<br /><br />I just would like to finally know who was in Mj´s house before he died. Who entered that night? who was the guy showing his face in the camera that night? who? Still no answer.<br /><br />Murray is in jail, but what about that person? Nobody have idea about his identity?
<br />Maybe it was a Wake Up call. Why took RTL so much money in a Video?<br />In the Article from everlastinglove_MJ they say, that was a Hoax Video to show how easy it is<br />to manipulate people, it must be a reason for that. For me, this Day was the Day to wake up.<br />This was the time, to stop my tears from day one, to go into me and hear of my heart.<br />Hoax Video = Hoax Death= thank you MJ <br />I`m awake<br />love<br />
<br /><br />I’m with you shorty. Just because someone alleged it to be an “experiment” doesn’t convince me one bit. My question is why an “experiment” during a time of mass mourning for many? Distasteful at the least. Disrepectful also to the family had it been truth that they believed Michael was dead. I don’t buy it. Who said it was an experiment anyway? What are their credentials that we are to believe it and take it at face value?
<br /><br />... Candid Camera the TV show did it and it aired in 1999: ...<br /><br />
<br /><br />Good point. However, did Candid Camera ever broadcast any of their pranks live? Or did they have to have permission from the unknowing “actors”, before being able to legally broadcast it? :icon_question: :icon_question:
California | Medical Malpractice <br />11/11/11, 5:27 pmLegal QuestionAttorneys Only: Answer this Question <br />Why in the Conrad Murray case, during the verdict Michael Jackson was still stated as alleged victim?and waht does alleged date means?<br /><br />...<br /><br />Legal Answer When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.<br /><br />Michael Stone<br /><br />Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE<br />3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300<br />Seal Beach, CA 90740 <br /><br />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br /><br />
<br />
<br /><br />Is this guy a real lawyer, or a clown? :icon_geek:<br /><br />In how many other court cases was the word "alleged" included, merely because the form was drafted before the decision of the jury? :animal0017: :icon_e_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :Pulling_hair: :icon_lol:<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 /><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 />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 />...<br /><br />Someone who died, or someone who was alive and did not need any medication for what in the photo there is no IV<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />...<br /><br />It's tough to dance around without conceding that MJ must be dead based on TS's argument of risk avoidance.<br />
<br /><br />Ok, so I guess we have Level 7b finished: the real Michael Joe Jackson went to UCLA in the ambulance, and he was really dead. What does that leave for 7c? Hoax court, sting court, both, or neither? :computer-losy-smiley: :errrr: :Crash: :icon_bounce: :icon_e_surprised: :suspect: :judge-smiley: :Pulling_hair: :over-react-smiley:
<br />My logic says to me that a “body” had to be taken from Carolwood to UCLA to distract attention of the goings on and clean up efforts, staging, etc. at the home long enough for loose ends to be tied together before attention was reverted back to the residence. <br />
<br /><br />I think that this was already discussed years ago, early in the hoax; and the discussion was that a death in the house would’ve made the house a potential crime scene, and/or the focus of investigation, etc. Maybe someone who has time can pull up some things from that thread, if you can find it.
<br />I'm sure TS didn't ask about that movie for nothing....there must be something very interesting about it and it's very frustrating that I can't find or guess what movie is that.<br /><br /> :icon_e_sad:<br /><br />There were some movies relevant for this hoax, starting with The court of Last resort, then Gilda and The Illusionist and V for Vendetta and 2012. TS can't you please narrow the research area and give us some hints?<br />
<br /><br />Unfortunately, I am not able to narrow the search. Personally, I have not seen every movie that has ever been made; but I tend to doubt that anyone will find "alleged" in a verdict in ANY movie (or any other real court case, for that matter). So far, nobody on this thread has reported finding even one such case. Therefore, we must now ask WHY was the word "alleged" used--if indeed it is strictly hoax court, entertainment movie only, and not a real sting in a real court case (with some hoax elements and clues, to avoid entrapment, etc)?
Comments