Bec look at this gif, the plant down there in the curb IS THERE, just take a good look.............it's the angle that fools the eye
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
Yes but they don't all match, the part of the bush spilling over the curb doesn't seem to lay directly on the pavement like it does in the other videos, and the watersprouts are still inexplicably absent as is the lowest branch on the tree.
But again, it makes no logical sense at all what I see.
Sorry to change the subject from bushes and plants that TS wants us to look at, but here is the link to Lou Ferrigno interview talking about stories he has heard of Michael putting a mannequin of himself in an ambulance to fool paparazzi. This corroborates what Ben said about Michael always going to the hospital. To my mind this is another suggested evidence to the other dd- day.
<!-- m -->http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx<!-- m --> ... 81ec29198f
I know nobody is going to take this post seriously or read this
But does anybody believe that maybe Mike could have taken the Photos himself??
I mean he ahs to know about camera angles and all that. 45 plus years of being in front of one and wanting to direct
He could have posed as a paparazzi and took the pics himself . Just a thought
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Sorry to change the subject from bushes and plants that TS wants us to look at, but here is the link to Lou Ferrigno interview talking about stories he has heard of Michael putting a mannequin of himself in an ambulance to fool paparazzi. This corroborates what Ben said about Michael always going to the hospital. To my mind this is another suggested evidence to the other dd- day.
<!-- m -->http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx<!-- m --> ... 81ec29198f
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.
Thank you very much @2good2btrue for taking the time to find these pics. Please can I ask you what you see that are the inconsistencies, I don't want to be lazy, but today I am feeling a bit numb brained and need some help? <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
I know nobody is going to take this post seriously or read this
But does anybody believe that maybe Mike could have taken the Photos himself??
I mean he ahs to know about camera angles and all that. 45 plus years of being in front of one and wanting to direct
He could have posed as a paparazzi and took the pics himself . Just a thought
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
might be something to consider . idk but you are right you probably won't get much response and i would be clueless as to where to begin to look myself <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
I know nobody is going to take this post seriously or read this
But does anybody believe that maybe Mike could have taken the Photos himself??
I mean he ahs to know about camera angles and all that. 45 plus years of being in front of one and wanting to direct
He could have posed as a paparazzi and took the pics himself . Just a thought
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
LOL
That's what I thought all the way down to today.
Last doubt melted when I watched the video on Westwood Plaza: the dark Escalade following the ambu.
Who drives dark Escalades? Was a dark Escalade parked in front of NPG headquarter? Was a dark blue SUV parked at Carolwood (remember the one I said was white in the back? was it the one that hit the ambulance mirror so they had to redo the car finish?).
And if so - Michael took the video camera on his own - I wish he had the best time of his life.
Documenting his own death parade - what a show. Puts a HUGE smile on my face.
I know nobody is going to take this post seriously or read this
But does anybody believe that maybe Mike could have taken the Photos himself??
I mean he ahs to know about camera angles and all that. 45 plus years of being in front of one and wanting to direct
He could have posed as a paparazzi and took the pics himself . Just a thought
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Hi EarthAngel77,
Hey, don't sell yourself short! This is NOT just a thought, it is genius! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> I am reading and taking this seriously. You could be right on!
I knew it--- always thought MJ was outside somewhere, but I was thinking a "Hitchcockian walk-on" <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> , NOT FILMING the shot!!! <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
We have been overthinking things, because we know we are dealing with GENIUS! We poo-poohed thoughts that he would be there, in the open, on the scene, because he is supposed to be in hiding. Well, <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> he's DUPED us again, kids! HOW does THIS man hide, hmmmm??? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
It never made sense to me that pro-active, hands on MJ would be content to play the lying down dummy in the ambulance, when he could be riding the bull (in DISGUISE!!) outside it! This <!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o --> new development <!-- s:idea: -->:idea:<!-- s:idea: --> (true or not, yet) is WAAAAY cool to consider! Thanks for posting this! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Wow...it IS HIS movie, after all, the Rascal. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
Sorry to change the subject from bushes and plants that TS wants us to look at, but here is the link to Lou Ferrigno interview talking about stories he has heard of Michael putting a mannequin of himself in an ambulance to fool paparazzi. This corroborates what Ben said about Michael always going to the hospital. To my mind this is another suggested evidence to the other dd- day.
<!-- m -->http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx<!-- m --> ... 81ec29198f
This is a great video, aw Lou is so nice, he says such wonderful things about Michael <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->. <!-- s --><!-- s --> Can't stop laughing though that Michael was working out in black tuxedo, just brilliant <!-- s --><!-- s --> Agent M <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
Lou you are right, it is indeed another prank from Michael, and you will see him soon <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Thank you for this video finfin! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> So Michael was using mannequins, which looked like him, to get the attention of paparazzi by putting them in ambulance, very interesting. Here comes the BUT, if paparazzi's were fooled by mannequin why we never saw the pictures of the ambulance with mannequin inside. I think paparazzi would love to make this big story how Michael Jackson is being taken to the hospital. Why we never herd of that before? or am i missing something? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Ms. Katherine depresses me all the time.....
I just saw that recent interview and she says her son is gone forever and Murray should pay and she was very upset.
I don't think it is possible she doesn't know about the hoax.
Maybe Michael is dead because I can't understand how comes Ms. Katherine speakes like that
I don't understand Katherine either. She doesn't make be doubt about the hoax. But when i hear her i always get this feeling that the plan does not include a comeback.
You're just a swine baby, all down the line daddy, you hate your kind baby, you're such a liar!
Katherine is being a good actress because her son asked her to do so for him. Duh. Stay with me people. Hoax on!
Ha, good catch! Line from Morphine, how appropriate...
"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."
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.
Thank you very much @2good2btrue for taking the time to find these pics. Please can I ask you what you see that are the inconsistencies, I don't want to be lazy, but today I am feeling a bit numb brained and need some help? <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
The emergency entrance door has a metal bar on the left side, but it isn't there on the "Famous Picture".
Also, the corridor is jam packed with equipement and storage stuff...but not visible on that fateful day. And an original picture just shows the ambulance #71 at the emergency entrance, but the another one (25/6/09), shows lots of cars and other ambulances...... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> and police cars.....different times, not angles..
somehow next to all these guys murry doesn't seem all that tall. i know his head it down but <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> maybe it is just an illusion <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
2good, your pics show opposite sides of the doorway. No evidence. There's no "bar" visible in the large picture either. I think that's why no one responded to your post the first time.
Bec look at this gif, the plant down there in the curb IS THERE, just take a good look.............it's the angle that fools the eye
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
Yes but they don't all match, the part of the bush spilling over the curb doesn't seem to lay directly on the pavement like it does in the other videos, and the watersprouts are still inexplicably absent as is the lowest branch on the tree.
But again, it makes no logical sense at all what I see.
Bec, I do appreciate you and your persistence in research--even if it is trying to debunk what I say; indeed, that is what I asked for. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Various people here come from a wide range of experiences and careers, each having their own areas of interest or expertise that they can contribute.
In this case, and actually with a lot of the pictures and videos being analyzed, most people here do not have very much if any experience in still photography, videography, and video editing, etc.
Those who do have experience in this field would easily recognize the very low resolution pixelization (from compression codec) in the video clip here—and specifically in the area of the missing water sprouts, etc. You can see the squares in the video, and there is only one color inside each square; this means that there is no possibility of any detail being seen within the area of those squares. The video just takes an average color in the area of the square, and makes the entire square that same color. It saves a lot on data usage, and is common with low quality video. This is not the same as blurring a high quality picture, in which case you can still see the water sprouts (as demonstrated already on this thread).
2good, your pics show opposite sides of the doorway. No evidence. There's no "bar" visible in the large picture either. I think that's why no one responded to your post the first time.
That's a very rude comment Bec.. I was replying to FinFin's question. YOU DON"T OWN THIS TOPIC. Infact, you seem really obsessed about being right instead of finding out the truth. Those sort of comments are uncalled for. I do not appreciate it. An apology would be expected.
Bec look at this gif, the plant down there in the curb IS THERE, just take a good look.............it's the angle that fools the eye
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
Yes but they don't all match, the part of the bush spilling over the curb doesn't seem to lay directly on the pavement like it does in the other videos, and the watersprouts are still inexplicably absent as is the lowest branch on the tree.
But again, it makes no logical sense at all what I see.
Bec, I do appreciate you and your persistence in research--even if it is trying to debunk what I say; indeed, that is what I asked for. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Various people here come from a wide range of experiences and careers, each having their own areas of interest or expertise that they can contribute.
In this case, and actually with a lot of the pictures and videos being analyzed, most people here do not have very much if any experience in still photography, videography, and video editing, etc.
Those who do have experience in this field would easily recognize the very low resolution pixelization (from compression codec) in the video clip here—and specifically in the area of the missing water sprouts, etc. You can see the squares in the video, and there is only one color inside each square; this means that there is no possibility of any detail being seen within the area of those squares. The video just takes an average color in the area of the square, and makes the entire square that same color. It saves a lot on data usage, and is common with low quality video. This is not the same as blurring a high quality picture, in which case you can still see the water sprouts (as demonstrated already on this thread).
Of course! Why didn't I think about the pixels resolution?
Bec look at this gif, the plant down there in the curb IS THERE, just take a good look.............it's the angle that fools the eye
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
Yes but they don't all match, the part of the bush spilling over the curb doesn't seem to lay directly on the pavement like it does in the other videos, and the watersprouts are still inexplicably absent as is the lowest branch on the tree.
But again, it makes no logical sense at all what I see.
Bec, I do appreciate you and your persistence in research--even if it is trying to debunk what I say; indeed, that is what I asked for. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Various people here come from a wide range of experiences and careers, each having their own areas of interest or expertise that they can contribute.
In this case, and actually with a lot of the pictures and videos being analyzed, most people here do not have very much if any experience in still photography, videography, and video editing, etc.
Those who do have experience in this field would easily recognize the very low resolution pixelization (from compression codec) in the video clip here—and specifically in the area of the missing water sprouts, etc. You can see the squares in the video, and there is only one color inside each square; this means that there is no possibility of any detail being seen within the area of those squares. The video just takes an average color in the area of the square, and makes the entire square that same color. It saves a lot on data usage, and is common with low quality video. This is not the same as blurring a high quality picture, in which case you can still see the water sprouts (as demonstrated already on this thread).
Of course! Why didn't I think about the pixels resolution?
Because TS like to use "POWER OF SUGGESTION". and that conclusion is the most obvious and has been brought up many times before. Good luck with the mind games....
Comments
Yes but they don't all match, the part of the bush spilling over the curb doesn't seem to lay directly on the pavement like it does in the other videos, and the watersprouts are still inexplicably absent as is the lowest branch on the tree.
But again, it makes no logical sense at all what I see.
<!-- m -->http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx<!-- m --> ... 81ec29198f
But does anybody believe that maybe Mike could have taken the Photos himself??
I mean he ahs to know about camera angles and all that. 45 plus years of being in front of one and wanting to direct
He could have posed as a paparazzi and took the pics himself . Just a thought
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
<!-- m -->http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx ... 81ec29198f<!-- m -->
LOL
That's what I thought all the way down to today.
Last doubt melted when I watched the video on Westwood Plaza: the dark Escalade following the ambu.
Who drives dark Escalades? Was a dark Escalade parked in front of NPG headquarter? Was a dark blue SUV parked at Carolwood (remember the one I said was white in the back? was it the one that hit the ambulance mirror so they had to redo the car finish?).
And if so - Michael took the video camera on his own - I wish he had the best time of his life.
Documenting his own death parade - what a show. Puts a HUGE smile on my face.
<!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Hey, don't sell yourself short! This is NOT just a thought, it is genius! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> I am reading and taking this seriously. You could be right on!
I knew it--- always thought MJ was outside somewhere, but I was thinking a "Hitchcockian walk-on" <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> , NOT FILMING the shot!!! <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
We have been overthinking things, because we know we are dealing with GENIUS! We poo-poohed thoughts that he would be there, in the open, on the scene, because he is supposed to be in hiding. Well, <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> he's DUPED us again, kids! HOW does THIS man hide, hmmmm??? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
IN PLAIN SIGHT <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> <!-- s:P -->:P<!-- s:P --> <!-- s:P -->:P<!-- s:P -->
It never made sense to me that pro-active, hands on MJ would be content to play the lying down dummy in the ambulance, when he could be riding the bull (in DISGUISE!!) outside it! This <!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o --> new development <!-- s:idea: -->:idea:<!-- s:idea: --> (true or not, yet) is WAAAAY cool to consider! Thanks for posting this! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Wow...it IS HIS movie, after all, the Rascal. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
<!-- s
This is a great video, aw Lou is so nice, he says such wonderful things about Michael <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->. <!-- s
Lou you are right, it is indeed another prank from Michael, and you will see him soon <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Thank you for this video finfin! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> So Michael was using mannequins, which looked like him, to get the attention of paparazzi by putting them in ambulance, very interesting. Here comes the BUT, if paparazzi's were fooled by mannequin why we never saw the pictures of the ambulance with mannequin inside. I think paparazzi would love to make this big story how Michael Jackson is being taken to the hospital. Why we never herd of that before? or am i missing something? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
L.O.V.E to all!
I just saw that recent interview and she says her son is gone forever and Murray should pay and she was very upset.
I don't think it is possible she doesn't know about the hoax.
Maybe Michael is dead because I can't understand how comes Ms. Katherine speakes like that
— P.T. Barnum
"I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right."
— P.T. Barnum
Katherine is being a good actress because her son asked her to do so for him. Duh. Stay with me people. Hoax on!
Ha, good catch! Line from Morphine, how appropriate...
"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."The emergency entrance door has a metal bar on the left side, but it isn't there on the "Famous Picture".
Also, the corridor is jam packed with equipement and storage stuff...but not visible on that fateful day. And an original picture just shows the ambulance #71 at the emergency entrance, but the another one (25/6/09), shows lots of cars and other ambulances...... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> and police cars.....different times, not angles..
Bec, I do appreciate you and your persistence in research--even if it is trying to debunk what I say; indeed, that is what I asked for. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Various people here come from a wide range of experiences and careers, each having their own areas of interest or expertise that they can contribute.
In this case, and actually with a lot of the pictures and videos being analyzed, most people here do not have very much if any experience in still photography, videography, and video editing, etc.
Those who do have experience in this field would easily recognize the very low resolution pixelization (from compression codec) in the video clip here—and specifically in the area of the missing water sprouts, etc. You can see the squares in the video, and there is only one color inside each square; this means that there is no possibility of any detail being seen within the area of those squares. The video just takes an average color in the area of the square, and makes the entire square that same color. It saves a lot on data usage, and is common with low quality video. This is not the same as blurring a high quality picture, in which case you can still see the water sprouts (as demonstrated already on this thread).
You're welcome. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
when i see the look on michael's face here and the pig it brings to mind : if you give a pig a pancake <!-- s
That's a very rude comment Bec.. I was replying to FinFin's question. YOU DON"T OWN THIS TOPIC. Infact, you seem really obsessed about being right instead of finding out the truth. Those sort of comments are uncalled for. I do not appreciate it. An apology would be expected.
I'm outta here. ................
Of course! Why didn't I think about the pixels resolution?
Because TS like to use "POWER OF SUGGESTION". and that conclusion is the most obvious and has been brought up many times before. Good luck with the mind games....