The ambulance picture is not a fake. It's not THAT difficult to figure out how the picture(s) were taken:
That's the point. Why is Ben showing us the picture of the guy that took "the picture" and it's not the man in the red shirt. The man in the red shirt is far away.
Look:
That tourbus just happens to be there the exact moment the ambulance pulls out of the driveway <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Why did they even pull out backwards when there's plenty of room to turn on the huge driveway! There even is a roundabout there, so normally that ambulance would enter and drive round it facing the back of the ambulance towards the frontdoor( would make it easier to load the patient in) and that would mean they are already standing in the right direction to drive off the property. Again so why backwards???
I think it's all staged, the ambulance, the tourbus, the photographers and even the red car on the street to make the pics believable.
@Em: who says the guy that took the picture is the guy in beige, and where do they say it?
Ben talks about them taking the picture while he's showing that picture. 1:25
[youtube:6r22yx5z]
I don't think you understand, I'm just showing there is an inconsistency between the pic BEN is showing us, and what was on that HOLLYWOOD video. I really don't care WHO was supposed to have taken the "MJ in ambulance" pic. If there is an inconsistency, you must wonder what's going on? Right?
In the HOLLYWOOD video it shows tan & red shirt guys together on the side as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN photograph, it shows tan shirt guy far away from red shirt guy as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the HOLLYWOOD video, it shows red shirt guy on the side as security has hands on back windows when ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN picture, the red shirt guy is at the back when security has hands on back windows as the ambulance is pulling away.
Has anybody a picture of this christopher weiss guy? I cannot find him ... <!-- s:-( -->:-(<!-- s:-( --> Does he even exist? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
@Em: who says the guy that took the picture is the guy in beige, and where do they say it?
Ben talks about them taking the picture while he's showing that picture. 1:25
[youtube:1brtwsol]
I don't think you understand, I'm just showing there is an inconsistency between the pic BEN is showing us, and what was on that HOLLYWOOD video. I really don't care WHO was supposed to have taken the "MJ in ambulance" pic. If there is an inconsistency, you must wonder what's going on? Right?
In the HOLLYWOOD video it shows tan & red shirt guys together on the side as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN photograph, it shows tan shirt guy far away from red shirt guy as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the HOLLYWOOD video, it shows red shirt guy on the side as security has hands on back windows when ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN picture, the red shirt guy is at the back when security has hands on back windows as the ambulance is pulling away.
Please look at my original post:)
Em
You don't understand what I'm saying. Ben does not say which guy took the picture: the one in red or the one in tan. Both guys are on that picture, so he is not incorrect: there is no inconsistency. Also concerning the distance, the ambulance is moving and they are as well, there is no inconsistency there either. The ambulance is taking a back turn to the left, moving closer with the side window relatively to mr. red shirt (who appears to have taken the picture) and mr. tan shirt is getting nearer to the front of the ambulance. They are still well a few steps apart by then.
Anyone tried to get a picture of the inside of the current ambulance to know if the stuff in the pict fit or looks to be an old ambulance ?
And by the same way to know if the angles fit ?
Do they keep ambulance during 20 to 25 years (if the original pic was take around 1985) with the old machine inside ? (Who keep a car for 20 years ? lol)
Anyone tried to get a picture of the inside of the current ambulance to know if the stuff in the pict fit or looks to be an old ambulance ?
And by the same way to know if the angles fit ?
Do they keep ambulance during 20 to 25 years (if the original pic was take around 1985) with the old machine inside ? (Who keep a car for 20 years ? lol)
I found this.
It's not an old ambulance. And the equipment is current as well. Certainly NOT from 1985. I'm pretty sure that was already discussed as fake because it came from some bazaar, unrelated source. But I made a video discussing the equipment you're seeing in the picture:
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC1b2jbipg8<!-- m -->
And I also made a topic where I took pictures through an ambulance window. The angle is correct:
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4518<!-- l -->
Ok, the angle is good from the side window.
Did you see the photograph take pic from the side ?
How the reflected red car can be so clear when the only moment to access this windows was when the trunk was moving ?
How do you explain the brightness of the shirt sign when most of the rest is grey ?
Anyone tried to get a picture of the inside of the current ambulance to know if the stuff in the pict fit or looks to be an old ambulance ?
And by the same way to know if the angles fit ?
Do they keep ambulance during 20 to 25 years (if the original pic was take around 1985) with the old machine inside ? (Who keep a car for 20 years ? lol)
This is a pic of the very same ambulance in question (71). I made it from a screenshot of a video I was watching one day, months ago. I've posted it a couple of times in other threads at various times when this has come up.
Ben said lens to the window. Would you get a reflection of the red car if the lens was to the window?
Probably not. If the flash was to the window, you would get a clear shot in. Did we see a flash go off in the video? Did you see a flash on that camera at all? If it was taken with the pop-up flash on top of the camera, wouldn't the flash reflection be in the middle of the pic and not on the side of the pic?
Something about that red car reflection, it just seems too big there to me, but that doesn't bother me so much.
What I'm seeing and trying to figure out, that in the reflection pic, the car seems to be in very spotty sunlight. You can see all the sun spots all over the hood and the tire seems to be in pretty much full sun.
Look and stop around 1:36 of this video and see the car. It looks to me to be sitting in more shade than the reflection suggests.
[youtube:2clrgfv1]
I must start off saying this. I am a photographer and it is possible to take a flash picture through that window. Just like Ben said, flash right up to the window.
About the red car:
There was a red car across the street. You can see it in this video at 1:37. Some say it was to the left, so how could it be in the picture? Well, the picture, if taken at an angle, would pick up an image from the opposite side. Try this: look into a mirror at an angle. Do you see the objects that are on the side? Now look straight into the mirror, you don't see them now.
After all that, I must say that I believe the photo is fake and a set up. Here's why:
Look at this picture:
This is supposed to be a pic of the "photographer" taking the picture. You see the man in the tan shirt taking the pic. The man in the red shirt is far to the left. They are not near each other. Some even say that the man in the red shirt took the "picture".
Now look at this video at 1:30
[youtube:23shs6w8]
Don't they look to be near each other?
Another thing about that top picture is that security is behind with their hands on the doors and the man in red is far left, but in the video starting at 1:28 the man in the red shirt is still on the side of the ambulance when security is behind.
What do you guys think?
Em
It is impossible to take that picture as clear as flash because strong sunlight neutralizes the power of flash. The photo was taken in an ambulance in motion and the reflection of the body of the paparazzi is blocking the image of a red car that its height is very low and is far from the ambulance. <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
Is it any how possible to get the EXIF data (camera settings data embeded in digital images for others,not Em ,ofcourse <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> ) any how from this photo? I guess its a screenshot of the RAW image in photoshop (to make it small but good in details)-so we cant get any help from it <!-- s --><!-- s -->
My observations and questions (Em or any other professional Photographers here help!):
1.The camera was held in portrait position (the flash is on left,not top)
2.The Photographer might kept the shutter speed high ,ISO high,f something around 5 or 6 to get a neat photo at that condition;right? He kept at this settings,and he was panning his camera for the moving ambulance,so the reflection on the glass window should be more blurred;right? But we are seeing nicely formed kind of bokeh of flash light on the left side.Is this consistent? Should not it show trailing from left to right like the red reflected tail lights?
3.He might used burst mode (continuous shooting)...why only one photo? All others are blurred too much,thats why he discarded?
4.I guess he used spot metering to the darkest place in the ambulance or just spot metered Micheal's face (to do it quickly),then why Micheal's face is looking more illuminated than the paramedic's arms?
5.Whether he used Prime lens or Zoom lens,it does not matter for this photo
is the height of taking the picture (=camera) is consistent with the view we are seeing in the photo?
6.The photographer is not looking through the viewfinder,so its obvious,he is taking picture looking on the LCD screen.Is it possible to see the viewfinder at that angle,considering the Sun and awkward position of the camera from his eyes?
I think they reversed out because that way the side window was out of sight.If they drove out the side window would be in full view the whole time.Also if you reverse you have to go slower,giving more time to take a fake picture.
Tina K, I'm with you on that one. I don't care what anyone says, there is no way any anyone could have got the clear photo, and the angle of it, from taking a photo from the outside of the ambulance. I have always believed that, and nothing will change my mind.
Even though I have successfully done it??
I think, based on the fact that you did try this yourself, lady medic, and it worked, that it can be done. I believe that those guys from NPG had the job to make sure they were the ones hogging the window so that nobody else could get a clear picture shot. The reason? Because they knew Michael wasn't in the ambulance.
Is it any how possible to get the EXIF data (camera settings data embeded in digital images for others,not Em ,ofcourse <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> ) any how from this photo? I guess its a screenshot of the RAW image in photoshop (to make it small but good in details)-so we cant get any help from it <!-- s --><!-- s -->
When a photo is shot digital, it has info embedded with the file from the camera. In Photoshop, you can go to Edit>File Info, and it will bring up info about the picture. This is called metadata. Here within File Info you can add more information also.
You can also strip the metadata from a file so there will not be any info. If you create a new blank document and copy and paste the pic (that has metadata) into it, it will remove the metadata that was with that file. I really wouldn't trust any info that were on these files, if there was any. It could be easily manipulated.
To me the picture tells the story:
MJ does not look like 2009 MJ.
Reflection of red car has spotted sun on it.
Red car seems to be in full sun in the "Ben" pic.
Red car is in shade in the video.
Nearly 10 picture of ambulance inside has been posted and none looks to be the same. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
If he took the picture from the side as it's showed on this far picture :
The red car is in middle of the street not parked ! lol
Does anyone know if there is a better image of that ambulance pic there...the one that has the side view of the ambulance with the photogs and such in it? I've only ever seen this version, and it's not that great...seems like a photo of a photo that was lying flat. I'd really like to see a better version and one that is not so skewed from the angle of the shot.
I viewed all the photos posted here...
I'm not sure but I have a thought about the height of the window.
Based on this photo
the right window of the ambulance to take the foto is this
How much shoud be high the boy outside the window? 180 cm? if in that moment the boy took the photo... is really possible that the red car was reflected to that window?
I think that is very strange, that car is really low, in that reflection maybe we should see the sky?? or leaf of a tree?
It seems that the red car is 1 photo, and the scene in the ambulance is 1 other photo...
2 overlying photos
I could very well be ill-informed about these photos. But shouldn't there be more paparazzi crowding the ambulance? I mean if you think about it... that type of photo would make your career and you'd make ridiculous money off it. If I were one of them, I'd be running around that thing trying to get a photo, yet there aren't that many. And paparazzi had plenty of time to get to the scene when it was announced something was wrong with MJ.
For example,this video shows paparazzi following MJ and his kids shopping.. it's insane.
[youtube:v0ppdewv]
So apparently him shopping is more interesting than his death? There should be way more people.
I wanna see who those paramedics are, were they on the schedule to work at that moment they were there? There are other ways to prove something like this, it just takes a lot more aggravation, time, and digging. Interesting you cant see ANY of their faces <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Comments
That's the point. Why is Ben showing us the picture of the guy that took "the picture" and it's not the man in the red shirt. The man in the red shirt is far away.
Look:
Em
Why did they even pull out backwards when there's plenty of room to turn on the huge driveway! There even is a roundabout there, so normally that ambulance would enter and drive round it facing the back of the ambulance towards the frontdoor( would make it easier to load the patient in) and that would mean they are already standing in the right direction to drive off the property. Again so why backwards???
I think it's all staged, the ambulance, the tourbus, the photographers and even the red car on the street to make the pics believable.
Ben talks about them taking the picture while he's showing that picture. 1:25
[youtube:6r22yx5z]
I don't think you understand, I'm just showing there is an inconsistency between the pic BEN is showing us, and what was on that HOLLYWOOD video. I really don't care WHO was supposed to have taken the "MJ in ambulance" pic. If there is an inconsistency, you must wonder what's going on? Right?
In the HOLLYWOOD video it shows tan & red shirt guys together on the side as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN photograph, it shows tan shirt guy far away from red shirt guy as the ambulance is pulling away.
In the HOLLYWOOD video, it shows red shirt guy on the side as security has hands on back windows when ambulance is pulling away.
In the BEN picture, the red shirt guy is at the back when security has hands on back windows as the ambulance is pulling away.
Please look at my original post:)
Em
This is a detailed article on the ambu shot including some comments of Christopher Weiss.
And by the same way to know if the angles fit ?
Do they keep ambulance during 20 to 25 years (if the original pic was take around 1985) with the old machine inside ? (Who keep a car for 20 years ? lol)
I found this.
It's not an old ambulance. And the equipment is current as well. Certainly NOT from 1985. I'm pretty sure that was already discussed as fake because it came from some bazaar, unrelated source. But I made a video discussing the equipment you're seeing in the picture:
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC1b2jbipg8<!-- m -->
And I also made a topic where I took pictures through an ambulance window. The angle is correct:
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4518<!-- l -->
Did you see the photograph take pic from the side ?
How the reflected red car can be so clear when the only moment to access this windows was when the trunk was moving ?
How do you explain the brightness of the shirt sign when most of the rest is grey ?
This is a pic of the very same ambulance in question (71). I made it from a screenshot of a video I was watching one day, months ago. I've posted it a couple of times in other threads at various times when this has come up.
Ben said lens to the window. Would you get a reflection of the red car if the lens was to the window?
Probably not. If the flash was to the window, you would get a clear shot in. Did we see a flash go off in the video? Did you see a flash on that camera at all? If it was taken with the pop-up flash on top of the camera, wouldn't the flash reflection be in the middle of the pic and not on the side of the pic?
Something about that red car reflection, it just seems too big there to me, but that doesn't bother me so much.
What I'm seeing and trying to figure out, that in the reflection pic, the car seems to be in very spotty sunlight. You can see all the sun spots all over the hood and the tire seems to be in pretty much full sun.
Look and stop around 1:36 of this video and see the car. It looks to me to be sitting in more shade than the reflection suggests.
[youtube:2clrgfv1]
???
It is impossible to take that picture as clear as flash because strong sunlight neutralizes the power of flash. The photo was taken in an ambulance in motion and the reflection of the body of the paparazzi is blocking the image of a red car that its height is very low and is far from the ambulance. <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
Is it any how possible to get the EXIF data (camera settings data embeded in digital images for others,not Em ,ofcourse <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> ) any how from this photo? I guess its a screenshot of the RAW image in photoshop (to make it small but good in details)-so we cant get any help from it <!-- s
My observations and questions (Em or any other professional Photographers here help!):
1.The camera was held in portrait position (the flash is on left,not top)
2.The Photographer might kept the shutter speed high ,ISO high,f something around 5 or 6 to get a neat photo at that condition;right? He kept at this settings,and he was panning his camera for the moving ambulance,so the reflection on the glass window should be more blurred;right? But we are seeing nicely formed kind of bokeh of flash light on the left side.Is this consistent? Should not it show trailing from left to right like the red reflected tail lights?
3.He might used burst mode (continuous shooting)...why only one photo? All others are blurred too much,thats why he discarded?
4.I guess he used spot metering to the darkest place in the ambulance or just spot metered Micheal's face (to do it quickly),then why Micheal's face is looking more illuminated than the paramedic's arms?
5.Whether he used Prime lens or Zoom lens,it does not matter for this photo
is the height of taking the picture (=camera) is consistent with the view we are seeing in the photo?
6.The photographer is not looking through the viewfinder,so its obvious,he is taking picture looking on the LCD screen.Is it possible to see the viewfinder at that angle,considering the Sun and awkward position of the camera from his eyes?
I think, based on the fact that you did try this yourself, lady medic, and it worked, that it can be done. I believe that those guys from NPG had the job to make sure they were the ones hogging the window so that nobody else could get a clear picture shot. The reason? Because they knew Michael wasn't in the ambulance.
If he took the picture from the side as it's showed on this far picture :
The red car is in middle of the street not parked ! lol
I don't know if you drive but i never get parallel to the street with reverse shift when i leave if i know i'll be able to use the full street size...
i only go at 90° to park in reverse shift ! <!-- s
When a photo is shot digital, it has info embedded with the file from the camera. In Photoshop, you can go to Edit>File Info, and it will bring up info about the picture. This is called metadata. Here within File Info you can add more information also.
You can also strip the metadata from a file so there will not be any info. If you create a new blank document and copy and paste the pic (that has metadata) into it, it will remove the metadata that was with that file. I really wouldn't trust any info that were on these files, if there was any. It could be easily manipulated.
To me the picture tells the story:
MJ does not look like 2009 MJ.
Reflection of red car has spotted sun on it.
Red car seems to be in full sun in the "Ben" pic.
Red car is in shade in the video.
Does anyone know if there is a better image of that ambulance pic there...the one that has the side view of the ambulance with the photogs and such in it? I've only ever seen this version, and it's not that great...seems like a photo of a photo that was lying flat. I'd really like to see a better version and one that is not so skewed from the angle of the shot.
I viewed all the photos posted here...
I'm not sure but I have a thought about the height of the window.
Based on this photo
the right window of the ambulance to take the foto is this
How much shoud be high the boy outside the window? 180 cm? if in that moment the boy took the photo... is really possible that the red car was reflected to that window?
I think that is very strange, that car is really low, in that reflection maybe we should see the sky?? or leaf of a tree?
It seems that the red car is 1 photo, and the scene in the ambulance is 1 other photo...
2 overlying photos
What do you think about?
For example,this video shows paparazzi following MJ and his kids shopping.. it's insane.
[youtube:v0ppdewv]
So apparently him shopping is more interesting than his death? There should be way more people.