I made 2 gifs. One from the good quality video and one from the other. I don't know what to say about those plants, if the video can blurr them off like that
listen.. I just noticed something. Why in first video the sun seems up like vertical and giving light straight through the trees and in the second it seems like the sun is somewhere like before or way after 12 pm? Why? because although I see SUN in the second video/gif, it really looks like it is not in the same place in the sky as in the first video/gif(as we know that at 12 pm the sun is up,vertically, in the sky and they it starts to go on one side). In the second video/gif it looks like it is filmed at another hour. And my impression is that it's before 12 pm. Were these two videos supposed to be filmed exactly at the same time?
"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."
Yulia it seems like it's not the same hour in the first video it's the ambulance that gets out, in the second it's a car so it shows that it has been taken at two different moments in the day.
Hi everyone, I have a question about the time listed in Exif metadata (12:08). Isn't it possible that the time is wrong because the digital camera had the wrong time setting? Perhaps it was not adjusted for daylight savings time, which would put it 1 hour behind the actual time?
maybe I'm wrong but it really seems that in the second gif it's a different hour than in the first. I am not talking about clouds in the sky. it seems a different hour... I don't know what to think anymore, my eyes hurt like hell.
I hope TS will come up to say his point regarding the two videos: one in which we see a plant and the other where we see no plant - and I am sure of it. And also why it seems that the two videos are filmed at different hours
Grace, these are 2 different angles. The first one is a front view of the shadows, and the second is a perspective. In the first one the shadows will deffinitely appear (from this angle of the camera) smaller. And from the other- bigger. But in the first photo it looks kinda too small though. I mean the shadows cover a larger portion in the second. Way larger, even considering and calculating the angle. It's possible only if there's a different time of the day in both photos.
EDIT
I'm looking at the video. It could be just the angle that makes those shadows smaller. I don't know.
Anna, I would be happy if it were only the angle.
Take the gap in the middle of the road and the specific triangular crack where the ambu backs up to - one time in the sun, one time in the shadow. Not only leaves moving in the wind are causing this. It is definitely later this day.
(Or the other day.) LOL
Waiting for the syringe to be shown in the trial and being handed over to Doc Murray to identify it whether he knew it or not. Then watch for the fingerprint proofs again and how they're gonna fight over the fact that Doc Murray's fingerprints are to be found on that syringe. Take a step back then, remember the other trial, the adult magazines and the fingerprints on them and hello, world, our head becomes a lead-free bulb on its own. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Oh and the house with the growing leaves "rear gate" of the OV Guide video could be the backside entry to Gregory Peck's castle on Delfern / Baroda Dr / N Carolwood - thanks for finding the gate, 2good! That would be an address, not that busy, loud N Carolwood 100.
He visited Michael Jackson on the set of filming the "Smooth Criminal" segment for Moonwalker (1988). He was a close friend of Michael Jackson for the last 25 years of his life, and often went horse riding with the singer at his Neverland Ranch.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000060/bio
Gregory is a very interesting artist.
He starred in "The Omen" and "On the Beach" - the latter being a movie about the subject of Fukushima, just being produced 52 years earlier.
The "leaves" gates belong to the property of Gary L. Wilson.
Gary L. Wilson has a history—as a principal, executive, and director—of leading major companies through strategic transitions and creating substantial economic value for both private investors and public shareholders. He is a strong advocate of improved corporate governance in public companies.
Wilson led the buyout of Northwest Airlines in 1989. In 1997, as Chairman of Northwest, he acquired control of Continental Airlines. Prior to the 9/11 disaster, Northwest’s market capitalization reached $6 billion, providing investors with handsome returns on their $300 million initial equity investment. He served as Chairman or co-Chairman of Northwest from 1991 to 2007.
As far as filming ambulance #71 at Carolwood in advance of 6-25-09, I think you agree that anytime in 2009 before 6-25 would be far more risky than on 6-25. This is why you put it back into 2008; but roughly one year earlier would make a noticeable difference in things growing around the entrance. However, the pictures below (see the colored circles) show a few of many things that are not different between the ambulance day, and when fans were there just a few days after 6-25-09. A few days would not make much if any noticeable differences in the plants; but one year difference would surely be noticeably different.
Ylia here is the answer to your question <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> Videos were taken on two different days. The first one from 6/25/09 supposedly and the fan video was taken the next day or a couple of days after June 25th.
Hi everyone, I have a question about the time listed in Exif metadata (12:08). Isn't it possible that the time is wrong because the digital camera had the wrong time setting? Perhaps it was not adjusted for daylight savings time, which would put it 1 hour behind the actual time?
PEACE
Exif metadata lists time and date set on the photo camera and if time was not correct on the camera then the Exif data will not be correct as well, but i think that paparazzi are not that sloppy to have the wrong time set on their cameras <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Here is a very interesting page of a book called "Photoshop elements 3 for dummies", i haven't read the whole book, but this page is very interesting.
<!-- m -->http://books.google.ru/books?id=e9ykS8M ... i=7yi7TbWM<!-- m -->
Included in Exif data are the date and time the photo was taken. This information is drawn from the date and time setting on your camera. But if your camera's date set incorrectly - maybe the battery ran down, or maybe you never set it to begin with (shame on you!) - the wrong date and time will get embedded into the photo's Exif metadata.
For professional photographers Exif data is very important, because it carries ALL the information about picture. They can then check what settings are good for photos and which are not. The sunlight plays a huge role in pictures, so a photographer should have a correct time set on camera to see how natural light effects the picture. I hope you understand what i mean <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> And of course the Exif data can be modified by the holder of original picture, but not all of it. He can change time and date (i've tried it with my pictures), but if Ben did change timing to 12:08, what for? I'm sure only few crazy people like i, will go and check Exif data.
Also this was the date on Exif data
Date: June 25, 2009 12:08:08PM (timezone is 7 hours behind GMT)
I forgot to add about the DST <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
<!-- m -->http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/t ... syear=2000<!-- m -->
so in 2009 the DST started on Sunday, 8 March 2009 01:59:59, it changed from 02:00:00 → 03:00:00 +1h. And it ended on Sunday, 1 November 2009 01:59:59 02:00:00 → 01:00:00 -1h. So on June 25 it was UTC/GMT -7 hours. I really doubt that Ben, professional photographer, forgot to change the time settings on his camera for 4 months <!-- s --><!-- s --> And if he DID INDEED forgot to change the time, then the Exif data would show timezone is 8 hours behind GMT.
My head hurts so bad from all these numbers. Michael it's all for you!!! Please don't feel bad for my head <!-- s --><!-- s -->, i know how sad you can get if you see people are not feeling well (physically) because of you. I'm actually getting smarter, so my brain is trying to deal with it. <!-- s --><!-- s --> I LOVE YOU SOOOO MUCH! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Daniela wrote:Hi everyone, I have a question about the time listed in Exif metadata (12:08). Isn't it possible that the time is wrong because the digital camera had the wrong time setting? Perhaps it was not adjusted for daylight savings time, which would put it 1 hour behind the actual time?
PEACE
Exif metadata lists time and date set on the photo camera and if time was not correct on the camera then the Exif data will not be correct as well, but i think that paparazzi are not that sloppy to have the wrong time set on their cameras
Here is a very interesting page of a book called "Photoshop elements 3 for dummies", i haven't read the whole book, but this page is very interesting.
<!-- m -->http://books.google.ru/books?id=e9ykS8M<!-- m --> ... i=7yi7TbWM
Included in Exif data are the date and time the photo was taken. This information is drawn from the date and time setting on your camera. But if your camera's date set incorrectly - maybe the battery ran down, or maybe you never set it to begin with (shame on you!) - the wrong date and time will get embedded into the photo's Exif metadata.
For professional photographers Exif data is very important, because it carries ALL the information about picture. They can then check what settings are good for photos and which are not. The sunlight plays a huge role in pictures, so a photographer should have a correct time set on camera to see how natural light effects the picture. I hope you understand what i mean And of course the Exif data can be modified by the holder of original picture, but not all of it. He can change time and date (i've tried it with my pictures), but if Ben did change timing to 12:08, what for? I'm sure only few crazy people like i, will go and check Exif data.
Also this was the date on Exif data
Date: June 25, 2009 12:08:08PM (timezone is 7 hours behind GMT)
As you guys around the world sleep, I in Australia have just woken up...
I will just post some new pictures I spent all last night finding..(yes, it has become a terrible obsession <!-- s:twisted: -->:twisted:<!-- s:twisted: --> )
Some more inconsistencies with the ambulance arriving and just when it did back out and park somewhere else.
The paramedics would have had to move the ambulance, to allow other emergencies to come through, but they themselves would have stayed at the hospital for a while to do the paperwork and hand over..
Just how many paramedics where in that ambulance?? And Murray was in there too?? Anyhow, look a these photos and spot the differences.
So picture was taken on June 25, 2009 12:08:08PM (timezone is 7 hours behind GMT)
(1 year, 10 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes, 28 seconds ago) Here is a problem with that timing: the timing and date can be easily corrected by the holder of original picture. So Ben or Chris could easily change the time and date, but what for? They could've changed it for the better timing when it was actually supposed to be taken. Not 18 minutes before ambulance even arrived to the house. To make a clue for people?
If the information you uncovered is correct then it is very weird that they would want the ambulance photo info to show it was taken minutes before 911 was even called. We know the ambulance photo is staged - 99.9% sure anyways <!-- s --><!-- s --> - and it would've had to be taken more in advance - the infamous "other day". Why only not just make it for the approximate time it was allegedly to have been taken? Why 12:08:08? Those numbers together equal 19 and then if you add June 25, 2009 which is 24 you get 43 which could then equal 7. Or 12:08:08 is a date - December 8, 2008. Actually Dec 8th was the day John Lennon was shot and killed in 1980. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Thanks for your research Kristina, my mind continues to go in circles but I really love these threads because they makes me THINK. Both productively and counter-productively. Which can be exhausting. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
And good morning 2good2btrue! My bedtime is just a few hours away.
Question posed to those who say the watersprouts were blurred out on the HT version. There's a branch missing off the tree too. Did bad video quality blur that off as well? I doubt that.
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?
Is it possible that the footage was tampered with? Like the plant growth either edited out or uhh..planted in? Or there was footage taken the "other day" and then re-enacted June 25th...?
Question posed to those who say the watersprouts were blurred out on the HT version. There's a branch missing off the tree too. Did bad video quality blur that off as well? I doubt that.
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?
I keep thinking TS is being cheeky, and really is drawing our attention to soemthing else...he wants us to look for another clue, based on the different images. Maybe its about one decorative light on, and the other not working..
I'm sticking to the theory that,
It was all taken that day....but because Ben shows us NO evidence of an ambulance arriving, then I presume it had arrived from the other entrance on Delfern Dve, and only made its exit for the SHOW. Meanwhile a staged photo was taken inside the residence, and has been altered via photoshop effects to make it look like it was taken outside.
He has combined his unsucessful attempt picture, and overlapped it with the staged one inside..
I still believe the other day, was simply that Ben was following the ambulance and the SUV's....maybe that was filmed the other day...maybe we could compare the shadows on the cars on the way to UCLA and prove it was taken another day.
"Michael was always going to the hospital"... Because ben's video does not show any evidence of the ambulance he was following had #71 on it, it could have been any other time.. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
The arrival at Emergency could have been staged, due to the inconsistencies with the doors...both of the relections, and the ambulance doors changing colour...
Question posed to those who say the watersprouts were blurred out on the HT version. There's a branch missing off the tree too. Did bad video quality blur that off as well? I doubt that.
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?[/quote]
Yeah it's not possible. The plants were there on 6/27/09 in the fan video. They would have to have been added to the landscape and as they look messy, that really doesn't make any sense. If the HT version had been taken in 2008, before a routine cleanup, where did the extra branch on the tree come from in Ben's video?
I don't understand it but it doesn't really mean anything I guess. Must be angles and lighting.
Question posed to those who say the watersprouts were blurred out on the HT version. There's a branch missing off the tree too. Did bad video quality blur that off as well? I doubt that.
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?
Yeah it's not possible. The plants were there on 6/27/09 in the fan video. They would have to have been added to the landscape and as they look messy, that really doesn't make any sense. If the HT version had been taken in 2008, after a routine cleanup, did they add a branch to the tree in 2009 for Ben's video? Not likely.
I don't understand it but it doesn't really mean anything I guess. Must be angles and lighting.
Oddly, "SamProdTV" also uploaded a video about Christian Audigier on the same day he uploaded the Evenstad footage (September 23, 2010), but they don't provide a source. Aside from the "SAMProd.us", there's no other watermark (like the hollywood.tv or ABCnews videos).
So picture was taken on June 25, 2009 12:08:08PM (timezone is 7 hours behind GMT)
(1 year, 10 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes, 28 seconds ago) Here is a problem with that timing: the timing and date can be easily corrected by the holder of original picture. So Ben or Chris could easily change the time and date, but what for? They could've changed it for the better timing when it was actually supposed to be taken. Not 18 minutes before ambulance even arrived to the house. To make a clue for people?
If the information you uncovered is correct then it is very weird that they would want the ambulance photo info to show it was taken minutes before 911 was even called. We know the ambulance photo is staged - 99.9% sure anyways <!-- s --><!-- s --> - and it would've had to be taken more in advance - the infamous "other day". Why only not just make it for the approximate time it was allegedly to have been taken? Why 12:08:08? Those numbers together equal 19 and then if you add June 25, 2009 which is 24 you get 43 which could then equal 7. Or 12:08:08 is a date - December 8, 2008. Actually Dec 8th was the day John Lennon was shot and killed in 1980. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Thanks for your research Kristina, my mind continues to go in circles but I really love these threads because they makes me THINK. Both productively and counter-productively. Which can be exhausting. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
And good morning 2good2btrue! My bedtime is just a few hours away.
Now I understand why, December 8 is my birthday!! I was related to the hoax and didn't even know about it <!-- s --><!-- s --> ....
God please help me not to lose my sanity completely
But I can't explain why John Lennon was killed on my birtday...this is sad...
Here's a relevant question: How in the world did little ol' Ben have an HD camera on that day? Those things are quite expensive. Remember, there was a big to-do made over the fact that they had 2 HD cameras for filming of TII-very expensive equipment. So what gives?
And if Ben had an HD camera capturing all the action... why was a crappy, pixilated quality version sold to Hollywood Tonight? Why was the HD version kept under wraps and not shown until many months after the event?
So many things filmed in HD during the course of this hoax that seem very strange to chose such high quality expensive film quality... the burial is one example. That still makes no sense. To film the whole thing in HD... and then never show the tape to anyone. Weirdness.
(Ps. @TS: I should know better then to research anymore, it always turns into a dead end [but I'm addicted]. I guess I just had to prove it to myself one more time. So ok, I give up now for real [but I'm a junkie]. You retain the upper hand, I concede and will keep watching [but I just can't get enough]. I have had a feeling that's the lesson we are supposed to learn. I'm a slow study.)
Comments
listen.. I just noticed something. Why in first video the sun seems up like vertical and giving light straight through the trees and in the second it seems like the sun is somewhere like before or way after 12 pm? Why? because although I see SUN in the second video/gif, it really looks like it is not in the same place in the sky as in the first video/gif(as we know that at 12 pm the sun is up,vertically, in the sky and they it starts to go on one side). In the second video/gif it looks like it is filmed at another hour. And my impression is that it's before 12 pm. Were these two videos supposed to be filmed exactly at the same time?
"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."Yulia it seems like it's not the same hour in the first video it's the ambulance that gets out, in the second it's a car so it shows that it has been taken at two different moments in the day.
This is what I think.
PEACE
I hope TS will come up to say his point regarding the two videos: one in which we see a plant and the other where we see no plant - and I am sure of it. And also why it seems that the two videos are filmed at different hours
Anna, I would be happy if it were only the angle.
Take the gap in the middle of the road and the specific triangular crack where the ambu backs up to - one time in the sun, one time in the shadow. Not only leaves moving in the wind are causing this. It is definitely later this day.
(Or the other day.) LOL
Waiting for the syringe to be shown in the trial and being handed over to Doc Murray to identify it whether he knew it or not. Then watch for the fingerprint proofs again and how they're gonna fight over the fact that Doc Murray's fingerprints are to be found on that syringe. Take a step back then, remember the other trial, the adult magazines and the fingerprints on them and hello, world, our head becomes a lead-free bulb on its own. <!-- s
Oh and the house with the growing leaves "rear gate" of the OV Guide video could be the backside entry to Gregory Peck's castle on Delfern / Baroda Dr / N Carolwood - thanks for finding the gate, 2good! That would be an address, not that busy, loud N Carolwood 100.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000060/bio
Gregory is a very interesting artist.
He starred in "The Omen" and "On the Beach" - the latter being a movie about the subject of Fukushima, just being produced 52 years earlier.
The "leaves" gates belong to the property of Gary L. Wilson. http://wikimapia.org/17108843/Gary-L-Wilson-Residence
Gregory's residence was in the north at Carolwood and the "castle" was a former Disney residence.
Ylia here is the answer to your question <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> Videos were taken on two different days. The first one from 6/25/09 supposedly and the fan video was taken the next day or a couple of days after June 25th.
L.O.V.E to all! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Exif metadata lists time and date set on the photo camera and if time was not correct on the camera then the Exif data will not be correct as well, but i think that paparazzi are not that sloppy to have the wrong time set on their cameras <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Here is a very interesting page of a book called "Photoshop elements 3 for dummies", i haven't read the whole book, but this page is very interesting.
<!-- m -->http://books.google.ru/books?id=e9ykS8M ... i=7yi7TbWM<!-- m -->
For professional photographers Exif data is very important, because it carries ALL the information about picture. They can then check what settings are good for photos and which are not. The sunlight plays a huge role in pictures, so a photographer should have a correct time set on camera to see how natural light effects the picture. I hope you understand what i mean <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> And of course the Exif data can be modified by the holder of original picture, but not all of it. He can change time and date (i've tried it with my pictures), but if Ben did change timing to 12:08, what for? I'm sure only few crazy people like i, will go and check Exif data.
Also this was the date on Exif data
It shows the time zone as well, 7 hours behind GMT and as we know UTC time zone is 7 hours behind GMT <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- m -->http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=137<!-- m -->
So if the time was not correct, then it would not show the correct time zone.
L.O.V.E to all!
<!-- m -->http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/t ... syear=2000<!-- m -->
so in 2009 the DST started on Sunday, 8 March 2009 01:59:59, it changed from 02:00:00 → 03:00:00 +1h. And it ended on Sunday, 1 November 2009 01:59:59 02:00:00 → 01:00:00 -1h. So on June 25 it was UTC/GMT -7 hours. I really doubt that Ben, professional photographer, forgot to change the time settings on his camera for 4 months <!-- s
My head hurts so bad from all these numbers. Michael it's all for you!!! Please don't feel bad for my head <!-- s
L.O.V.E to all!
I will just post some new pictures I spent all last night finding..(yes, it has become a terrible obsession <!-- s:twisted: -->:twisted:<!-- s:twisted: --> )
Some more inconsistencies with the ambulance arriving and just when it did back out and park somewhere else.
The paramedics would have had to move the ambulance, to allow other emergencies to come through, but they themselves would have stayed at the hospital for a while to do the paperwork and hand over..
Just how many paramedics where in that ambulance?? And Murray was in there too?? Anyhow, look a these photos and spot the differences.
If the information you uncovered is correct then it is very weird that they would want the ambulance photo info to show it was taken minutes before 911 was even called. We know the ambulance photo is staged - 99.9% sure anyways <!-- s
Thanks for your research Kristina, my mind continues to go in circles but I really love these threads because they makes me THINK. Both productively and counter-productively. Which can be exhausting. <!-- s
And good morning 2good2btrue! My bedtime is just a few hours away.
Question posed to those who say the watersprouts were blurred out on the HT version. There's a branch missing off the tree too. Did bad video quality blur that off as well? I doubt that.
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?
I keep thinking TS is being cheeky, and really is drawing our attention to soemthing else...he wants us to look for another clue, based on the different images. Maybe its about one decorative light on, and the other not working..
I'm sticking to the theory that,
It was all taken that day....but because Ben shows us NO evidence of an ambulance arriving, then I presume it had arrived from the other entrance on Delfern Dve, and only made its exit for the SHOW. Meanwhile a staged photo was taken inside the residence, and has been altered via photoshop effects to make it look like it was taken outside.
He has combined his unsucessful attempt picture, and overlapped it with the staged one inside..
I still believe the other day, was simply that Ben was following the ambulance and the SUV's....maybe that was filmed the other day...maybe we could compare the shadows on the cars on the way to UCLA and prove it was taken another day.
"Michael was always going to the hospital"... Because ben's video does not show any evidence of the ambulance he was following had #71 on it, it could have been any other time.. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
The arrival at Emergency could have been staged, due to the inconsistencies with the doors...both of the relections, and the ambulance doors changing colour...
I doubt it but I don't know what it means. The plant growth would have to be removed before the HT take (other day) and after Ben's take (that day?)... which makes no sense. That would mean Ben's video came first, with the messy foliage... then the grounds were cleaned up... (?) and then the HT version was filmed... ?[/quote]
Yeah it's not possible. The plants were there on 6/27/09 in the fan video. They would have to have been added to the landscape and as they look messy, that really doesn't make any sense. If the HT version had been taken in 2008, before a routine cleanup, where did the extra branch on the tree come from in Ben's video?
I don't understand it but it doesn't really mean anything I guess. Must be angles and lighting.
Yeah it's not possible. The plants were there on 6/27/09 in the fan video. They would have to have been added to the landscape and as they look messy, that really doesn't make any sense. If the HT version had been taken in 2008, after a routine cleanup, did they add a branch to the tree in 2009 for Ben's video? Not likely.
I don't understand it but it doesn't really mean anything I guess. Must be angles and lighting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NQJMm3mi4
viewtopic.php?p=324934#p324934<!-- l -->) like 10 days ago. Does anyone (or you Souza) know where the original footage is from?
Oddly, "SamProdTV" also uploaded a video about Christian Audigier on the same day he uploaded the Evenstad footage (September 23, 2010), but they don't provide a source. Aside from the "SAMProd.us", there's no other watermark (like the hollywood.tv or ABCnews videos).
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSjeIMBEYU<!-- m -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXiLROMZaqI<!-- m -->
Now I understand why, December 8 is my birthday!! I was related to the hoax and didn't even know about it <!-- s
God please help me not to lose my sanity completely
But I can't explain why John Lennon was killed on my birtday...this is sad...
It's right there at the beggining, in a moment when you almost can't see the ambulance and the image moves to the right
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NQJMm3 ... re=related<!-- m -->
[youtube:3onnbewe]
And if Ben had an HD camera capturing all the action... why was a crappy, pixilated quality version sold to Hollywood Tonight? Why was the HD version kept under wraps and not shown until many months after the event?
So many things filmed in HD during the course of this hoax that seem very strange to chose such high quality expensive film quality... the burial is one example. That still makes no sense. To film the whole thing in HD... and then never show the tape to anyone. Weirdness.
(Ps. @TS: I should know better then to research anymore, it always turns into a dead end [but I'm addicted]. I guess I just had to prove it to myself one more time. So ok, I give up now for real [but I'm a junkie]. You retain the upper hand, I concede and will keep watching [but I just can't get enough]. I have had a feeling that's the lesson we are supposed to learn. I'm a slow study.)