My apologies if this was answered already and we have moved on in the discussion, but after 17 pages I'm confused if we ever determined the answer to the original question.
This zoomed area is a leaf-like pattern (whether or not you see a face hidden in the pattern). So the big question for now is whether the pattern ...
#1 ... is part of the secondary image (with the red car, etc)?
#2 ... is part of the ambulance interior design?
#3 ... is edited into the picture (Photoshop), not part of the ambulance or secondary image?
The image appears to be at the same opacity as the secondary image (red car). ^^TS kindly even placed them in order.
My answer to the original topic question is #1 and #3. It looks like the face/leaves image was added to one original reflection pic that was taken outside Carrolwood house on 6/25, during the now famous ambulance backing out scene.
That one original pic was layered as different % opacity levels over these (3) pics of the staged ambulance interior scene. The face image was cropped out of the tabloid headline version. At some point after 6/25/09, these 3 full frame versions were found online. I'd love to know how exactly that happened but it was on the forum, someone posted a full version on a thread just like we are doing now... and then someone else posts it on another thread, and then it's requoted and reposted and blogged all over and then wait... they aren't the same pic...
What this means is that these photographers are certainly working for MJ. Didn't they also get the UCLA stretcher pics?
I think that the video showing the wall rules out #1 and the video showing the interior of Ambulance 71 rules out #2 which leaves #3. If someone is leaving the full pictures online they must want us to figure out something.
Okay, so I decided to start the redirect thread this time. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
This zoomed area is a leaf-like pattern (whether or not you see a face hidden in the pattern). So the big question for now is whether the pattern ...
#1 ... is part of the secondary image (with the red car, etc)?
#2 ... is part of the ambulance interior design?
#3 ... is edited into the picture (Photoshop), not part of the ambulance or secondary image?
To help you figure out the answer: I have included below four different ambulance photos, a video of the wall area behind the red car, and a video of the inside of ambulance 71 (11803, CA 1261551).
Wow! It feels like it is Game Time!
As my photoshopping expertise is NIL, I have spent some time observing the pictures and drawing a few conclusions purely based on BASIC observations.
-The 4 pictures above are made of at least 3 different BASE pictures: The interior of the ambulance, the outside scene and a third "picture" or overlay.
- The third "picture" or overlay is the one that has the leaf-like pattern (Green Man)
- This third "picture" or overlay is DIFFERENT on pictures 1, 2, 3 and 4; in other words there are 4 different overlays, all with different patterns, shapes, numbers, letters, animals and faces added to the base pictures. I like the elephant! It reminds me of PT Barnum! <!-- s --><!-- s -->
- The inside of the ambulance whilst being similar to ambulance 71 appears to be different. (Refer to mdc post for a picture - http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18053&start=450#p310387
An example of taking a picture on ambulance 78 (for getting into identifying irregularities if any) is the following. Sun light is about the same, it's noon.
You will notice that you don't see much - except that the window glass panel is not even and is creating cords. This is not exceptional and you will notice that car panels usually are not even.
You will also notice that you cannot see anything from the outside except
a) when being very close to the window and
b) when there are floodlights keeping the inside bright.
Comparing these pictures to the ones on ET online (see post above, The Insider also did publish picture #2), we will notice that the original pictures are clearer.
The greyish layered full view pictures started leaking to the web as of July 2009 around the time when Ben Evenstad showed his "proof" picture in the interview video.
One of the first pictures without a presslogo on it was this shot of a computer screen:
Did anyone notice that the face image in picture #1 changes in picture #4. It looks like he is smiling bigger in the fourth picture. Or it could be pointing to doubles... a bit of a stretch but a possibility. It reminds me of the two possible MJs in the BAD video.
I’m confused about what we see in the different videos. Are there two red cars? I’ve been watching the Hollywoodtv video to see where the red car was positioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuXRaJFdmKU
You can see the ambulance is driven backwards and turns. At around 1:33 it starts forward. We know the side window is near the front. The person turns from the window and begins to run back. At 1:36 you can see there is a red car that has been metres behind him. How could that red car have been reflected in the side window of the ambulance. Notice the lights of the car are on, which is not the case in the photos.
Then there's Ben Evenstad and his magic computer. (I don't know why abcnews.com have 'Ambulance at Neverland' in the video title)
Now this is interesting, you might want to verify this yourself.
<!-- m -->http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/michae ... d-10974241<!-- m -->
For the purpose of research -
I’m confused about what we see in the different videos. Are there two red cars? I’ve been watching the Hollywoodtv video to see where the red car was positioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuXRaJFdmKU
You can see the ambulance is driven backwards and turns. At around 1:33 it starts forward. We know the side window is near the front. The person turns from the window and begins to run back. At 1:36 you can see there is a red car that has been metres behind him. How could that red car have been reflected in the side window of the ambulance. Notice the lights of the car are on, which is not the case in the photos.
doesn't the front of the car in the video look more boxy than the one in the reflection? or is it just me?
I have to correct myself about the timing of the leaking for the full pictures.
This is the video showing the first full picture on a computer screen and it was posted June 27, 2009 by a youtube member speaking German: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAm3NDJiMds
Interestingly, only in the greyish layered full pictures that were leaked to the web, we found those eyes, faces, leaves etc.
This was more or less the same procedure we had witnessed as with the O2 photos that were altered and modified later. The only difference was that the photoshop jobs on the O2 photos showed a miserable quality and were to be noticed by everybody by just zooming in.
Those different full ambulance pictures were altered in a very fine artistic way.
Quality takes some time. Especially when one has to do as if it were 1985 or 1995.
Taking the required time for a good photoshop job into account, considering the time of publication of the pictures by ET online (before 6:03 p.m. June 25, 2009), there is no doubt that the pictures were prepared in advance.
Given that Ben Evenstad had been following Michael since quite some time (and even stated in the second video how many times Michael had been hospitalized) I assume he had only to look into his archive drawers or servers to find some "model" pictures to modify.
All which was left to be done was to set up a photographer-taking-scene matching the chosen storybook elements and layers in the photos (e.g. sunny day with shadows, afternoon, red car etc.), to make sure that only the guys of the team get close enough and then to let the avalanche get pace after feeding the prepared pictures to the media.
Now as to importance of special dates and how could you determine a clear day at a special date? In Caliland, weather is not so unpredictable. Check out these historical weather conditions and you'll see that as of June 21 the sky was always clear at noon / early afternoon.
Plus: a good planner thinks worst case, too. There would have been a photo for a rainy day, too, I don't doubt this. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
I’m going to make one more introductory comment here, before taking a deep dive into the evidences regarding the ambulance photo, and the hows of the hoax. In this process, I don’t want anyone to accept or reject what I present merely because of who presents it; as I have always said, go by the evidence itself—regardless of who presents it. And in fact, others should bring in evidence they have found (and indeed, many are doing this already in this thread, which is good); don’t just wait for me to explain everything.
To put it another way: I may challenge true theories, and/or I may lend support to false theories. In fact, I will usually have at least two different theories for each step. And as we follow the theories: we may find one hitting a dead end, while another flows nicely with no serious difficulties.
Most importantly, I want to inspire critical analysis; even more important than the subject itself, is how you approach it. Unfortunately, many hoax investigators have gone down the road of supporting the hoax with very flimsy evidence at best, and often just plain incorrect evidence. This type of approach does not help anyone; it only makes unbelievers ridicule us as crazy (well, maybe we are <!-- s --><!-- s --> ). But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law.
Critical investigation means to approach the subject as if you were trying to DISPROVE the hoax—not trying to come up with anything and everything imaginable to support the hoax (or supposedly support it). And if you TRY to disprove something, but can’t find any reasonable way around it, then you PROBABLY have some good solid evidence. Also, if you have at least two or more strong evidences pointing to the same conclusion, then that is most likely the truth. But it’s not a good idea to base any conclusion on only one piece of evidence, even if it seems to be a fairly strong point.
When the trial starts, I will not be doing very many redirects or comments. There will be plenty for you to investigate—especially since it will be televised; and I don’t want to take your time and attention from that. However, we have about a month left; let’s see how far we can get connecting the dots on the hows of the hoax (coming up with a good, solid, coherent theory).
So now I’m going to start challenging some of the theories out there, on the ambulance photo. Please keep in mind that I’m not trying to pick on anyone specific; I am only asking for critical examination, and clear evidence. And yes, many very good and correct things have been researched and discovered by hoax investigators; I am not trying to discredit all of the tremendous effort that has been put into this for 20 months now. But there are some particular areas that I want to challenge; and if they can be sustained by solid evidence, fine. And if not, then we may need to revise some of our conclusions.
Some have said that the photo is fake, because the reflection of the red car is facing the wrong direction. But the red car was parked facing the same direction that the ambulance drove away while leaving, and in the reflection the red car is facing towards the front of the ambulance.
A similar idea is that the red car is too low to the ground, for it to be reflected in a window that is much higher than the level of the car. Anyone can debunk this idea by walking up to a mirror (or a window that has a good reflection in it); the closer you get to the mirror/window, the more you can see things lower and lower to the ground. By holding the camera up close to the ambulance window, it would be easy for the camera to see a reflection of something much lower than the ambulance window.
Yet another idea is that the red car was parked in the wrong place for it to be reflected in the ambulance window. However, that depends on what point in time the famous ambulance photo was taken. If it was taken while the ambulance was still backing out of the driveway, then yes the car reflection would be wrong; but if the photo was taken later as the ambulance started to pull down the street, then the red car was in the right place to be reflected in the ambulance window.
One of the very first theories was that the ambulance photo is fake, because only the yellow shirt guy is there at the window snapping the shot in the still picture (and in the sunshine, no tree shadows); but the red shirt guy is there in the video of it. However, the still photo with only the yellow shirt guy was taken as the ambulance was coming out of the driveway—you can even see the fire engine behind the ambulance in that still picture. The video with the red shirt (and the other guy) is a few seconds later, as the ambulance begins to pull away (and there are shadows of trees in that area).
Another common idea is that you can’t take a picture through the tinted ambulance window. This point has already been questioned and debated on the hoax forums quite a bit, and several people—even of those who support the hoax—think that it can be done, if you use the right camera, settings, and flash (which is no doubt what professional paparazzi would be prepared to do). Just because someone tried to do it with a cell phone, and didn’t get good results, means nothing; cell phones don’t normally have flash, and they certainly aren’t the high quality camera and flash equipment that would come on a paparazzi camera. So we can’t really use this tinted glass argument as solid evidence. For those who want to research it, there is actually a lot of information on the internet (having nothing to do specifically with MJ or ambulances) about taking pictures through dark or tinted windows.
I’m not going to take the time to include pictures of these things, which most of us have seen hundreds of times now; but if anyone else wants, they can add the pictures of the things we are discussing here. In my next comment, I will start a detailed examination of the possibilities about the leaf pattern, etc.
Before moving on with the investigation of the ambulance photo, and other aspects, I want to mention once more the purpose for this thread--since it has only been a few days, and several are questioning it already.
As I said before, your METHOD or APPROACH to investigation is far more important than the ambulance photo or other parts of the hoax. Not merely for investigating this hoax, but for your own good in your entire life, these are extremely valuable skills--and this forum and thread give you an opportunity to learn and practice these skills in an environment that is friendly (or at least should be, and usually is). Part of the good investigation skills here, is learning how to critically examine things from the OPPOSITE perspective than your own belief (which in this case is the hoax). We have a term for people who are unwilling to look at or even consider things from somebody else's perspective, and that term is "prejudice"--and you already know what MJ thinks about prejudice.
For the most part, people have been doing excellent research and have a lot of good questions and/or answers. Some of the very things that I am planning to bring out, have already being discovered and brought out by others--which is great. For example, the timing of when the ambulance photo was released--this point is EXTREMELY important, especially when it comes to the question of hoax versus murder. I will explain why soon.
But even though most comments have been good or excellent, there have been a few complaints recently about this thread. We still have several weeks before the trial, and we're just getting good started on this phase of investigation; if it is too much for you, then please either skip the thread, or else read only and don't comment. I don't mean to exclude anyone who has genuine input on what is being discussed; but please keep your discussion to evidence for or against the topic at hand, and not complaints about the topic itself or the purpose for it, etc. Again, if for any reason this thread is not helping you personally, then just skip it. But please don't interfere with those who are taking it seriously, and who are getting enjoyment from it and/or are practicing good investigation skills.
Last of all, I am the one who started this thread: maybe I should give a little more of an overview, so people will have a little better idea of the bigger picture that we are working on piecing together here. The ambulance picture is a major key to unlocking the entire hoax--how and who, etc. It's not only important to understand IF the photo is fake, but HOW it was faked. Once we understand how (staged in the same amublance, but another day; or staged in another ambulance on another day; or not staged at all, but Photoshop fabricated; or not fake at all, but 100% real; etc)--then the rest of the events should fall into place relatively easily.
For example if the paramedics were involved with staging the photo before 6-25-2009, then they were most likely also in on the hoax itself. But if the ambulance photo was 100% real, or perhaps real but slightly edited in Photoshop, then maybe the paramedics are not in on the hoax at all. Once we understand whether or not the paramedics are in on the hoax, then many of the other pieces should fall into place--such as who or what was in the ambulance on 6-25-2009 (MJ, or dummy, or nothing, etc). There is also the question of whether the entire court and courtroom is staged, with the judge and jury and lawyers all being confidential agreement actors--or is there perhaps just a few key people who know what's really going on.
If the answer to these questions doesn't interest you, that's your perfect right; but kindly allow those of us who are interested to continue our investigation.
For the most part, I am just sitting back and watching people discover some of my secrets, before I get around to spilling them! But actually, that is the way I want it. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Nevertheless, I am now going to go into an extensive analysis of Ben's slip, and why the timing of the photo release is EXTREMELY important.
Here is the statement, word-for-word, with a little context. "So, yes, Chris, and the other people that were there that day and the other d---- and uhhh, and uhhh ---- are a part of that agreement, are gonna make a lot of money. Absolutely!" {at 4:05, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VR-HSc2aM4}.
The first step in analyzing this slip, is understanding what Ben almost said--it should be obvious, but let's make it very clear. He almost said: "... that day and the other DAY!" We know this because of the word "other". You say: “That tree, and the other tree …”, or “This car and the other car …”--you don’t say: “That tree and the other car …” So if the noun before and after "other" is the same noun, then it would have to be "... that day and the other DAY." This conclusion is further verified by the fact that Ben had actually pronounced the first letter of the next word, before interrupting himself; and that first letter is quite clearly a "d" sound.
The next step is to assess the slip-up factor. Whether intentional or accidental, this statement has all the signs of a slip-up. Not only does Ben interrupt himself right in the middle of the word "day"; but at that same instant, he blinks his eyes and turns away from the camera. Then he stammers a couple of times, before getting himself somewhat back together--and the letting the word "agreement" slip out. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
So if this is an intentional slip-up, then we surely have a faked photo (regardless of how it was faked); and also a hoax, not murder--because surely nobody would INTENTIONALLY slip-up on a pre-meditated plot to murder the KING! But what if it was an accidental slip, could it then be murder? Well, even if murder, it would still be a PHONY PHOTO! Which is the main point of investigation right now. However, this is where the timing of releasing this photo gets very interesting.
We know "that day" was June 25, 2009; there were too many people who observed and reported it, for them all to be in on the hoax (including the tour bus, etc). But when was the "other day" that Ben spilled for us: before or after June 25 (it can NOT be the SAME day, or it would not be the "OTHER" day)?
If the photo was first released on June 28, or 27--then perhaps the other day was June 26. Perhaps after attempting to get a good shot of MJ in the ambulance, they had nothing usable; so they scrambled to pull together a staged shot on June 26 (the "other day"), and then released the famous fake photo shortly after. If this is how it really went, then perhaps MJ could have really died on June 25 (murdered, or whatever); and these paparazzi guys were in on nothing, except fake journalism--not in on a murder plot, and not in on a hoax plan.
However, what if the photo was first released ON JUNE 25??? And yes, we have several evidences of this--including tweets, news reports, and even the personal testimony of one or more on this very forum and thread! So if the photo was released on June 25, then the "other day" was BEFORE June 25; and so we have the paparazzi being in on SOMETHING planned in advance, the only question is what.
Could it be that they were in on a murder plot? Does this fit the murder theory? Think about it a little. How many extra people would be involved in this pre-meditated murder plot, just to get a photo? We would have Ben, "Chris, AND the other PEOPLE [staged paramedics?] that were there that day AND THE OTHER D[AY]"! The word "people" is plural, including a MINIMUM of two, and usually three or more--PLUS Ben and Chris. So we have here at least four, and probably more, involved in a premeditated murder plot--JUST TO GET A SINGLE PICTURE?!?!?!?!?!?!? Why would the murderers spend all the money to bribe several people to be murder accomplices, and also increase the risk of the whole murder plot getting exposed? The more people who know about the murder, the more likely somebody will spill the beans--whether intentionally or not, such as Ben's slip for example! Why all that money and risk, just for a picture? Why would murderers give ten cents for a picture, why would they care???
If it is a hoax, on the other hand, then there is a very important reason for the ambulance photo: to help convince the public that MJ died! A picture is worth a thousand words, right? Now several have mentioned on this very thread, that most unbelievers agree that the photo is fake; but they still think it is murder. WHAT??? Did they ever stop to THINK about WHY a sinister murder plot would be designed to include a pre-planned fake ambulance picture?
TS has already given us plenty of clues in his comments on how this event/picture happened. Some people are getting confused because maybe they're over analyzing this and it really is alot simpler than we realize. There is at least two theories running in TS' comments but he did provide us with plenty of ammo to work with.
Maybe instead of letting the imagination run wild and adding too many options of how this was done actually read what TS has said. The answers to your questions (those who are completely confused by this) are in his comments. Hide and seek!
After reading the TS post this has become clear to me. I have thought since about a week after the "death" it was fishy. Nothing has changed only a stronger belief since then. As the great PT Barnum would say, "The Greastest Show on Earth" is near its end.
I believe TS is just trying to have us reconsider different aspects of the events, so when they are brought to "light" in the trial we are "fresh" with info that we might have forgotten.(ie pic almost 2yrs now)
In fact, TS and Thisisalsoit are indeed enough "proof" by themselves of the hoax. Why?
A- MJ alive would never allow or give permission for someone to toy with our minds and hearts in this fashion. Their purpose is to give "hope" when there feels like there is none. or
B- MJ is dead and TS is sick , cruel pyscho who enjoys mantipulating people and found the perfect forum to do so. Tho nothing is gained for TS in this scenario other than demented satisfaction, I would assume he would eventually get "bored" with this.
Tho TS will not come out and say it was or was not a hoax.(tho we all know or wouldn"t be here) The time for answers to our many questions is near. He is only pointing out what those questions were.
So for me, I'm gonna quit banging my head on the wall, believe what I believe, grab some popcorn and enjoy the rest of show! And rub it so many peoples faces after!!! Buckle up boys and girls, this gonna be one fun ride!
Now we are entering physics. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
The "hole" in the window (at right) is somewhat a key hole or what Michael would allow us to see <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->:
This is an example of refraction, thus light going into a different direction:
Refraction works with simple waterdrops as well:
Caravaners are using a similar prism film on their caravan rear window for a better view while manoevering backwards and for avoiding the "dead angle" where they overlook objects or people.
Watch Ben's video again: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/michael-jackson-ambulance-neverland-10974241
1) The yellow shirt video taker is using the "hole" (though he is shorter he's holding his camcorder above) and is shortly getting the paramedic doing something at left (seat almost empty). Impossible to sit up and get the hands coordinated again in a fraction of a second.
2) The red shirt guy didn't get anything at all because he was holding the camera way below the "hole" and could only catch the mirrored surroundings due to the settings of the window.(at 2:00)
Conclusion for the three occurancies mentioned above:
the famous photos have been shot at another occasion.
To put it another way: I may challenge true theories, and/or I may lend support to false theories.
Maybe instead of letting the imagination run wild and adding too many options of how this was done actually read what TS has said. The answers to your questions (those who are completely confused by this) are in his comments. Hide and seek!
Peace[/b][/color]
Don't forget though, TS's sentence that I've put in bold. We shouldn't just take his word on things.
can anyone more computer savvy PLZ zoom in on the Round Small Stamp inside ambulance wall- right abow paramedics hand, who holding intubulation bag??
its look like black and white square stamp on the wall
THANX A LOT - mb its help us to find to who that ambulance belong, since its seems like emblem wth some words around <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
To put it another way: I may challenge true theories, and/or I may lend support to false theories.
Maybe instead of letting the imagination run wild and adding too many options of how this was done actually read what TS has said. The answers to your questions (those who are completely confused by this) are in his comments. Hide and seek!
Peace
Don't forget though, TS's sentence that I've put in bold. We shouldn't just take his word on things.
There is at least two theories running in TS' comments but he did provide us with plenty of ammo to work with.
Maybe instead of letting the imagination run wild and adding too many options of how this was done actually read what TS has said. The answers to your questions (those who are completely confused by this) are in his comments. Hide and seek!
I didn't forget. As a matter of fact I said he has at least two theories running and I will add to that now and say it is up to you/me and your/my own critical investigating to figure out which one is true and which one is false. If anyone on this board realizes what he has said it is me; that is why I said to read his words again.
It is like a puzzle and it does take common sense in the end to figure out that this really isn't that hard. We make it harder than it has to be.
Taking the required time for a good photoshop job into account, considering the time of publication of the pictures by ET online (before 6:03 p.m. June 25, 2009), there is no doubt that the pictures were prepared in advance.
Given that Ben Evenstad had been following Michael since quite some time (and even stated in the second video how many times Michael had been hospitalized) I assume he had only to look into his archive drawers or servers to find some "model" pictures to modify.
All which was left to be done was to set up a photographer-taking-scene matching the chosen storybook elements and layers in the photos (e.g. sunny day with shadows, afternoon, red car etc.), to make sure that only the guys of the team get close enough and then to let the avalanche get pace after feeding the prepared pictures to the media.
Now as to importance of special dates and how could you determine a clear day at a special date? In Caliland, weather is not so unpredictable. Check out these historical weather conditions and you'll see that as of June 21 the sky was always clear at noon / early afternoon.
Plus: a good planner thinks worst case, too. There would have been a photo for a rainy day, too, I don't doubt this. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Great research as usual Grace. Congrats and thank you! I was looking out for that ambulance picture of Michael from 1985. And like you wrote, it is not too hard to predict what the weather would be like on a certain day in LA. We're definitely on the same meridian with LA and in June, it's sunny almost all of the days. It's very rare to see clouds and rain in summer. And weather forecast can give you a weekly report.
About the ambulance pictures that Mike took. Did he try to use any flashlight?
Grace, when you compared the video to the still pics, you gave me such a duh moment. I think you win this round! The paramedics position and the monitor being on instead of off really does prove the pic is staged at another location.
Why is that keyhole there? Is that standard on an ambulance window or was that installed for hoax purposes? I expect the answer to be "it's standard" because it appears the videographer knew just where to find it.
Here's another little thing. I know in low light situations, video is invariably brighter then still film taken of the same subject. In Ben's video, the ambulance interior is very dark and it's difficult to pick up any detail. The famous ambulance pics by comparison appear to be in a floodlight, like Photog had TheWorld'sBrightest flash.
Well TS, I gave it a day or two and I indeed stayed out of trouble hurting my eyes over this picture and the videos. You owe me a pair of glasses and a new brain <!-- s --><!-- s --> It actually only took me only 5 minutes to realize you are right about the angle of the reflection. I thought that the red car was parked more to the back, but when I looked at the picture again (the one with the yellow shirt guy/Ben at the side window) I realized that was an optical illusion and the car is parked more to the front, so it is indeed possible to get a reflection like that, and I guess in that case you won't get a reflection of the photographer either, but I would need to try that myself to be sure. Maybe chappie could try this with her van, car and dummy. I think the picture was shot (according to the video footage and the angle of the reflection, at this point:
But the fact that you are right about that, doesn't mean the car isn't photoshopped in there. Actually, when I simply use common sense, it HAS to be shopped in there with the wall, because the reflection of the car doesn't match the car on the scene when you look at the lighting of the sun. The car in the video has no sun reflection in the left (front), while the one in the picture has a lot of sun reflection there. Also the sun reflection on the car in the picture is much more than in the video, where the car is more in the shadow:
That would mean that the ambulance picture was taken on another time of the day, when the sun was in a different position, probably the other d... uhhhm. BUT! No way in hell they would take the risk by putting the ambulance in front of the house to get a staged picture because there is a big chance some paps would be on the scene, cars passing by, fans at the house etc. It would have hit the news one way or another and that would ruin it, because the ambulance wasn't meant to be seen until June 25; hoax day. So if Mike didn't reproduce that wall with curb, trees and all in a studio or anywhere else, I think it's safe to assume that the car and the wall reflections are indeed shopped into the picture. It's much safer to just take a few pics in different angles from a parked car and pick the one that matches the scene on June 25.
There is more that still doesn't add up which I would like you to try and debunk as well, since this seems to be necessary because if you wouldn't have challenged the angle issue, I would still have thought it was impossible. So here we go:
When I put all pictures on top of each other, with the background perfectly matched, you can see the EMT bag in the front is moving. That shouldn't be possible, because it doesn't move. It's part of the static scene and should therefore be at the same position on all 4 pics, yet it moves along with the car. Can you explain that?
I think the bag is shopped in as well because it seems to be floating in mid-air.
Since the reflection must be shopped into the picture, the picture was most likely not made through a window because they couldn't have other reflections in the picture. So the ambulance scene is probably part of a set (it doesn't match the real inside of ambulance 71 anyway) and the picture is altered to make it look like it has been taken through a window.
These are 4 different pictures and we see the car moving quite a bit. Yet the EMT that is supposed to be performing CPR isn't moving. You move when you are performing CPR, so we should have seen the guys hand and body do at least a little more than we see on these pictures because performing CPR requires you to move or else there will not be enough pressure to do anything significant.
The monitor is off in the ambulance pictures, while on the video it's clearly on and produces quite some light.
The leave pattern is cut off at the EMT's arm and the sheet, but is overlapping the handle of the small cabin in the back of the ambulance. We already found out it can't be a reflection, but this also proves that it's not part of the interior, which leaves photoshop.
Lastly there is still the issue that the black and white thingy (I really have no clue what it is) is overlapping the EMT bag. This should not be possible, because the bag is in front and should overlap anything that is behind it:
So whaddya got? <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Just wondering...
Do you think the cabinet from the pictures match the cabinet from the video? Wouldn't that white border show up in the pictures?
Good catch! I'm glad somebody noticed this--it is one of the "secrets" that I have been planning on pointing out, if nobody found it. But I'm always glad when someone else finds it first. There is one more thing about this that I will include later, if nobody else gets it first.
For now, though, let's ask if the difference here proves two different ambulances: one on "that day" (#71, June 25, video, with bright border), and one on the "other d
and uh, and uh" (#??, before June 25, staged famous still photos, with dark border)?
And while we are looking at these comparison shots, does anybody want to say that the leaf pattern can be seen in both the video and the still, or only in the still? Could this be another evidence of two different ambulances, on two different days (unless the leaf pattern was added in Photoshop--more on that later)?
Definitely a different ambulance. The white border/dark border is not the only difference:
The top cabin seems to be non-existing on the ambulance pic and the blood pressure thing is totally different.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Comments
I think that the video showing the wall rules out #1 and the video showing the interior of Ambulance 71 rules out #2 which leaves #3. If someone is leaving the full pictures online they must want us to figure out something.
Wow! It feels like it is Game Time!
As my photoshopping expertise is NIL, I have spent some time observing the pictures and drawing a few conclusions purely based on BASIC observations.
-The 4 pictures above are made of at least 3 different BASE pictures: The interior of the ambulance, the outside scene and a third "picture" or overlay.
- The third "picture" or overlay is the one that has the leaf-like pattern (Green Man)
- This third "picture" or overlay is DIFFERENT on pictures 1, 2, 3 and 4; in other words there are 4 different overlays, all with different patterns, shapes, numbers, letters, animals and faces added to the base pictures. I like the elephant! It reminds me of PT Barnum! <!-- s
- The inside of the ambulance whilst being similar to ambulance 71 appears to be different. (Refer to mdc post for a picture - http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18053&start=450#p310387
With L.O.V.E
Thank you....BIG Thank you!!!!!
http://mikesphotos.us/gallery2/v/Action/Events/FSD-78-2009/RA78/
Credit goes to azazel28 (Nov 11, 2009 on mjkit) for finding Mike's site.
You will notice that you don't see much - except that the window glass panel is not even and is creating cords. This is not exceptional and you will notice that car panels usually are not even.
You will also notice that you cannot see anything from the outside except
a) when being very close to the window and
b) when there are floodlights keeping the inside bright.
Comparing these pictures to the ones on ET online (see post above, The Insider also did publish picture #2), we will notice that the original pictures are clearer.
The greyish layered full view pictures started leaking to the web as of July 2009 around the time when Ben Evenstad showed his "proof" picture in the interview video.
One of the first pictures without a presslogo on it was this shot of a computer screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuXRaJFdmKU
You can see the ambulance is driven backwards and turns. At around 1:33 it starts forward. We know the side window is near the front. The person turns from the window and begins to run back. At 1:36 you can see there is a red car that has been metres behind him. How could that red car have been reflected in the side window of the ambulance. Notice the lights of the car are on, which is not the case in the photos.
Now this is interesting, you might want to verify this yourself.
<!-- m -->http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/michae ... d-10974241<!-- m -->
For the purpose of research -
This is the video showing the first full picture on a computer screen and it was posted June 27, 2009 by a youtube member speaking German:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAm3NDJiMds
Interestingly, only in the greyish layered full pictures that were leaked to the web, we found those eyes, faces, leaves etc.
This was more or less the same procedure we had witnessed as with the O2 photos that were altered and modified later. The only difference was that the photoshop jobs on the O2 photos showed a miserable quality and were to be noticed by everybody by just zooming in.
Those different full ambulance pictures were altered in a very fine artistic way.
Quality takes some time. Especially when one has to do as if it were 1985 or 1995.
Taking the required time for a good photoshop job into account, considering the time of publication of the pictures by ET online (before 6:03 p.m. June 25, 2009), there is no doubt that the pictures were prepared in advance.
Given that Ben Evenstad had been following Michael since quite some time (and even stated in the second video how many times Michael had been hospitalized) I assume he had only to look into his archive drawers or servers to find some "model" pictures to modify.
All which was left to be done was to set up a photographer-taking-scene matching the chosen storybook elements and layers in the photos (e.g. sunny day with shadows, afternoon, red car etc.), to make sure that only the guys of the team get close enough and then to let the avalanche get pace after feeding the prepared pictures to the media.
Now as to importance of special dates and how could you determine a clear day at a special date? In Caliland, weather is not so unpredictable. Check out these historical weather conditions and you'll see that as of June 21 the sky was always clear at noon / early afternoon.
Plus: a good planner thinks worst case, too. There would have been a photo for a rainy day, too, I don't doubt this. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
He's such a tricky actor... "the agency that were at the house the day Michael Jackson d... passed away".
And still he had no explanation why he stayed in his car in front of the gate when all the other paps were hurrying to follow the SUVs.
Stay stay stay
What you want
But don’t play games
With my affection
Take take take
What you need
But don’t leave me
With no direction...
<!-- s
Maybe instead of letting the imagination run wild and adding too many options of how this was done actually read what TS has said. The answers to your questions (those who are completely confused by this) are in his comments. Hide and seek!
Peace
I believe TS is just trying to have us reconsider different aspects of the events, so when they are brought to "light" in the trial we are "fresh" with info that we might have forgotten.(ie pic almost 2yrs now)
In fact, TS and Thisisalsoit are indeed enough "proof" by themselves of the hoax. Why?
A- MJ alive would never allow or give permission for someone to toy with our minds and hearts in this fashion. Their purpose is to give "hope" when there feels like there is none. or
B- MJ is dead and TS is sick , cruel pyscho who enjoys mantipulating people and found the perfect forum to do so. Tho nothing is gained for TS in this scenario other than demented satisfaction, I would assume he would eventually get "bored" with this.
Tho TS will not come out and say it was or was not a hoax.(tho we all know or wouldn"t be here) The time for answers to our many questions is near. He is only pointing out what those questions were.
So for me, I'm gonna quit banging my head on the wall, believe what I believe, grab some popcorn and enjoy the rest of show! And rub it so many peoples faces after!!! Buckle up boys and girls, this gonna be one fun ride!
The "hole" in the window (at right) is somewhat a key hole or what Michael would allow us to see <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->:
This is an example of refraction, thus light going into a different direction:
Refraction works with simple waterdrops as well:
Caravaners are using a similar prism film on their caravan rear window for a better view while manoevering backwards and for avoiding the "dead angle" where they overlook objects or people.
Watch Ben's video again:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/michael-jackson-ambulance-neverland-10974241
1) The yellow shirt video taker is using the "hole" (though he is shorter he's holding his camcorder above) and is shortly getting the paramedic doing something at left (seat almost empty).
Impossible to sit up and get the hands coordinated again in a fraction of a second.
2) The red shirt guy didn't get anything at all because he was holding the camera way below the "hole" and could only catch the mirrored surroundings due to the settings of the window.(at 2:00)
Conclusion for the three occurancies mentioned above:
the famous photos have been shot at another occasion.
<!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
We are dealing here with optical illusion paired with application of different media, different perspectives, different speed at different points of time. No wonder everybody is confused.
Basics of optics, the "knowledge of light": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics
A great animation of modification of perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29
Don't forget though, TS's sentence that I've put in bold. We shouldn't just take his word on things.
its look like black and white square stamp on the wall
THANX A LOT - mb its help us to find to who that ambulance belong, since its seems like emblem wth some words around <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
It is like a puzzle and it does take common sense in the end to figure out that this really isn't that hard. We make it harder than it has to be.
Peace
Great research as usual Grace. Congrats and thank you! I was looking out for that ambulance picture of Michael from 1985. And like you wrote, it is not too hard to predict what the weather would be like on a certain day in LA. We're definitely on the same meridian with LA and in June, it's sunny almost all of the days. It's very rare to see clouds and rain in summer. And weather forecast can give you a weekly report.
About the ambulance pictures that Mike took. Did he try to use any flashlight?
Agree. That's the reason why Ben made a slip-up like "that day and the other d... umm".
Why is that keyhole there? Is that standard on an ambulance window or was that installed for hoax purposes? I expect the answer to be "it's standard" because it appears the videographer knew just where to find it.
IF the videographer didn't make an agreement like Ben did. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Well TS, I gave it a day or two and I indeed stayed out of trouble hurting my eyes over this picture and the videos. You owe me a pair of glasses and a new brain <!-- s
But the fact that you are right about that, doesn't mean the car isn't photoshopped in there. Actually, when I simply use common sense, it HAS to be shopped in there with the wall, because the reflection of the car doesn't match the car on the scene when you look at the lighting of the sun. The car in the video has no sun reflection in the left (front), while the one in the picture has a lot of sun reflection there. Also the sun reflection on the car in the picture is much more than in the video, where the car is more in the shadow:
That would mean that the ambulance picture was taken on another time of the day, when the sun was in a different position, probably the other d... uhhhm. BUT! No way in hell they would take the risk by putting the ambulance in front of the house to get a staged picture because there is a big chance some paps would be on the scene, cars passing by, fans at the house etc. It would have hit the news one way or another and that would ruin it, because the ambulance wasn't meant to be seen until June 25; hoax day. So if Mike didn't reproduce that wall with curb, trees and all in a studio or anywhere else, I think it's safe to assume that the car and the wall reflections are indeed shopped into the picture. It's much safer to just take a few pics in different angles from a parked car and pick the one that matches the scene on June 25.
There is more that still doesn't add up which I would like you to try and debunk as well, since this seems to be necessary because if you wouldn't have challenged the angle issue, I would still have thought it was impossible. So here we go:
When I put all pictures on top of each other, with the background perfectly matched, you can see the EMT bag in the front is moving. That shouldn't be possible, because it doesn't move. It's part of the static scene and should therefore be at the same position on all 4 pics, yet it moves along with the car. Can you explain that?
I think the bag is shopped in as well because it seems to be floating in mid-air.
Since the reflection must be shopped into the picture, the picture was most likely not made through a window because they couldn't have other reflections in the picture. So the ambulance scene is probably part of a set (it doesn't match the real inside of ambulance 71 anyway) and the picture is altered to make it look like it has been taken through a window.
These are 4 different pictures and we see the car moving quite a bit. Yet the EMT that is supposed to be performing CPR isn't moving. You move when you are performing CPR, so we should have seen the guys hand and body do at least a little more than we see on these pictures because performing CPR requires you to move or else there will not be enough pressure to do anything significant.
The monitor is off in the ambulance pictures, while on the video it's clearly on and produces quite some light.
The leave pattern is cut off at the EMT's arm and the sheet, but is overlapping the handle of the small cabin in the back of the ambulance. We already found out it can't be a reflection, but this also proves that it's not part of the interior, which leaves photoshop.
Lastly there is still the issue that the black and white thingy (I really have no clue what it is) is overlapping the EMT bag. This should not be possible, because the bag is in front and should overlap anything that is behind it:
So whaddya got? <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Good catch! I'm glad somebody noticed this--it is one of the "secrets" that I have been planning on pointing out, if nobody found it. But I'm always glad when someone else finds it first. There is one more thing about this that I will include later, if nobody else gets it first.
For now, though, let's ask if the difference here proves two different ambulances: one on "that day" (#71, June 25, video, with bright border), and one on the "other d
and uh, and uh" (#??, before June 25, staged famous still photos, with dark border)?
And while we are looking at these comparison shots, does anybody want to say that the leaf pattern can be seen in both the video and the still, or only in the still? Could this be another evidence of two different ambulances, on two different days (unless the leaf pattern was added in Photoshop--more on that later)?
The top cabin seems to be non-existing on the ambulance pic and the blood pressure thing is totally different.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."