This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TS_comments
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
16
« on: November 21, 2012, 10:33:55 AM »
... Well TS you clearly are trying to confuse us here to keep us busy and working on it to try to get to discover it.. or not with the theories of a dummy and/or a corpse being used while heading to UCLA, why do I think that way?:
A) Because you have used the word "WHAT was on the stretcher" where "WHAT" means "IT" and I would never take a corpse as a "THING" but as a dead body (at least in spanish) still a person without breathing, I would always use the word "IT" for a dummy only. ... No intentional confusion. Someone else on this thread interpreted the word "what" to mean that it WAS a corpse; all a matter of interpretation.
17
« on: November 21, 2012, 10:28:39 AM »
... Lol, when its knock off time. You don't leave your shift when ur working on resuscitating Michael Jackson.
(That's regarding the shift change)
And MJ planning the hoax to a T and not arranging a specific paramedic and ambulance crew? Leaving that to chance? ... This is not about leaving a shift, during the middle of a call--nor is it about failing to arrange specific people in advance. Instead, it is about the possibility that someone would show up (at the house, or at UCLA), who was not planned to be there and was not in the hoax. This happens in real life; and it was a realistic possibility on 6-25-09, even if it was not highly probable. The hoax was planned with 3 layers of protection: #1 Have everyone be in on the hoax, who is planned to be most directly working with the body. #2 Have a real patient, just in case someone gets in the mix who was not originally planned to be there. #3 If all else fails, have the FBI on standby to keep quiet anyone who might find something out that they were not intended to know.
18
« on: November 21, 2012, 10:14:20 AM »
With all respect, but you can't just pick a ((almost)death) patient out of an hospice to "act" as a dying MJ.
What about the family of the patient, or the (possible) pain and drama,this person was going through (the end of) his life?
You can't just "use" such a real person for this, that's rude.
And seriously, what would the world think, when this comes out?
"MJ used a hospice patient for his death hoax". Don't you think the people will think that MJ is crazier than they allready thought?
I'm sorry but I can't see how a used corpse can help him to build up a better image for him as a person. ... Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning (which is not evidence, and would not hold up in a court of law) is what many people are using, as their MAIN reason to dismiss the corpse theory--and prevent them from candidly assessing some very obvious facts. What if this was court, and these reasons were thrown out of court as emotional reasons and not admissible evidence, what would you have left? Furthermore, there are answers to these objections. First of all, who says that the whole world is going to learn all the steps in how the hoax was accomplished? Unless it is announced on major news, by the FBI or someone that the public would believe, then the public would be left merely to investigate the methods--if they wanted to (and most would not bother to investigate). Next, if there is a real criminal sting involved, then the FBI would have the final say in at least some phases of the hoax--including what went to UCLA on the stretcher. So it would not be MJ's decision, and nobody could blame MJ even if they learned how it was accomplished. Third, and I think Souza and/or others found this in one of the previous levels: Death with Dignity answers a lot of questions about timing, and much more. {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
19
« on: November 21, 2012, 09:34:36 AM »
Who said Blount lied to the fan? That could have easily been the truth and he instead, lied on the stand. Or maybe Blount did not lie to the fan OR on the stand. Maybe it was just as I portrayed it, in my last post. Although it's true that we should not gullibly believe everything we hear; on the other hand, it is also true that we should not reject everything we hear--merely because we can’t gullibly believe everything. We should seriously consider taking things at face value, unless there is solid evidence otherwise.
20
« on: November 21, 2012, 09:24:34 AM »
... could this contradiction between Blount and senneff be a clue regarding who's in the hoax and who's not?
Senneff maybe wasn't in the hoax and Blount was...which is what this contradiction says. ... Yes, but maybe you have it backwards. What if Senneff was in the hoax--since it is apparently him in the pre-staged ambo pic? Senneff knew that the patient was not Michael JOE Jackson, and he also knew (or learned) that the patient was Michael JOSEPH Jackson. But how did Blount "immediately" recognize MJ, with all the paraphernalia? Simple: Blount knew this was the KOP's house, and the master bedroom, and someone was on the bed which was not a child, not female, not a horse, etc; so Blount assumed it was MJ, by the normal process of context, and the normal way that our brains work. After a while, though, while working more closely with the patient, Blount began to realize that it did not appear to be MJ after all (which is what the stalker fan reported, at UCLA, which was long after Blount walked in the room and "immediately" recognized MJ).
21
« on: November 21, 2012, 09:10:48 AM »
... continuing on my last post ...
Notice also that many things were done, to confuse the appearance of the patient.
Blount: “he had an IV attached to his leg”, a “nasal cannula … attached to his nose”, “a condom catheter attached to him”; “and all of that was in place, when” Blount “first saw Mr. Jackson”; and Blount “described Mr. Jackson as being very pale and very thin”
{~0:50, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; see also ~12:00, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
“[Senneff:] The patient was dressed with pajama bottoms, a pajama top; the top was open, the patient was wearing a surgical cap, or something similar, covering his hair; and he appeared to be underweight to me.” {~9:15, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).
“[Senneff:] … his eyes were open, they were dry, and his pupils were dilated.”
{~3:45, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
“Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ's house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient – extremely frail.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).
Oh, and one more thing ... Does this description fit exactly what we see in the ambo pic??? :icon_e_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_bounce: :icon_e_surprised: :icon_geek: :suspect: :animal0017:
22
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:51:55 AM »
Notice also the difference in the reports of Senneff and Blount, regarding the recognition of the patient. “[Brazil:] At, at this point in time, have you recognized the patient as anyone that you’re familiar with? [Senneff:] No, I haven’t even looked. [Brazil:] You haven’t looked at the patient at all? [Senneff:] No I’ve, I’ve looked at the patient; but I didn’t really look at the whole face, I, — I was busy. [Brazil:] At some point, did you learn that the patient that was on the floor that you were treating was in fact Michael Jackson? [Senneff:] I did.” {~5:30, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} “[Brazil:] When you entered the room, and you saw the patient, did you recognize who the patient was? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] Did you immediately recognize him? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] And you recognized him to be, Mr. Michael Jackson—correct? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am.” {~7:30, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
23
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:47:46 AM »
... continuing on my last post ...
Notice also that many things were done, to confuse the appearance of the patient.
Blount: “he had an IV attached to his leg”, a “nasal cannula … attached to his nose”, “a condom catheter attached to him”; “and all of that was in place, when” Blount “first saw Mr. Jackson”; and Blount “described Mr. Jackson as being very pale and very thin”
{~0:50, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; see also ~12:00, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
“[Senneff:] The patient was dressed with pajama bottoms, a pajama top; the top was open, the patient was wearing a surgical cap, or something similar, covering his hair; and he appeared to be underweight to me.” {~9:15, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
“[Senneff:] … his eyes were open, they were dry, and his pupils were dilated.”
{~3:45, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
“Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ's house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient – extremely frail.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).
24
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:43:32 AM »
deleted, double post
25
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:34:14 AM »
... Also, Should a real corpse have been used, the risk of it 'not being MJ' possibly witnessed by paramedics, UCLA staff / coroner / autopsy personnel would have been high considering MJs distinguished looks. ..." Actually, the risk of someone who didn't look too much like MJ is much less of a risk than a dummy being discovered by someone not in the hoax. Consider the fact that it has actually been reported, both on TMZ and in court, that the patient looked like a frail hospice patient, and not MJ, etc. But does the public think twice about these reports, or do they just continue believing the official story? Now what if it came out on TMZ and in court that a dummy had been discovered, do you really think that the public would not think twice about it?? Also, over the years--and especially leading into June 25,2009--many things were done (or at least reported), to create confusion about MJ's appearance--so much so that even some stalker fans apparently could not tell the real from a double. Was perhaps there a reason for this, or just a random koinkidink? Doubles used ... Plastic surgery ... Baldness and wigs ... Masks ... Not out in public much ... And more ...
26
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:14:44 AM »
In all honesty and when I consider how long this has been going, how can we ever know what really happened? We go round and round in circles with the mental gymnatics ![]() .... so TS ....
Here's the silver platter.... now dish out the facts dude! 
![]()
:LolLolLolLol: Yes, it may be about time for the platter. :abouttime: However, just because I say that things were done a certain way, does not mean that everyone will believe me--and in fact, it is good if people don't just take my word merely because I say so. Nevertheless, it is hard and time consuming to back up what I say with strong evidence. :Pulling_hair: :LolLolLolLol:
27
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:07:10 AM »
TS
Also agreed that the schedule picture may not have been current on 6-25-09, and schedules can change. For the purpose at hand, though, it doesn't really matter; in fact, the point that schedules can change (even unexpectedly) is my main reason for bringing up Blount. The fact he was put on shift C that day randomly shows the hoax would work even if unforeseen changes happen, as they do in a fast-paced world. So where does that leave us if perhaps the EMT’s were not in on the hoax? They were all just doing their job that day. To prepare for executing this hoax, like the old series Mission Impossible, MJ had to know perfectly the regular daily routine and possible variation of every one of the groups of people involved in the hoax, so that even if there were some slight changes, it wouldn't be drastic enough to derail the main event.
I find this a very interesting observation, MJonmind. It takes me back to TS's advice to change nothing except what was needed to execute the hoax, starting from no-one in it, no hoax, MJ died.
... I find myself toying with the idea of what if the only thing changed was that it wasn't MJ who died?
:th_bravo: And yes, MJonmind, doing things in real time (Level 7a, remember) opens the possibility, even if small, that a paramedic might show up that was not originally planned to be there; and the same goes for UCLA staff. This was my main purpose of mentioning Blount from another shift--whether he was actually from another shift, whether he was there unplanned, or whether he was from the same shift and in on the hoax, the point remains the same: plan the hoax around the realistic possibility that someone shows up unexpectedly.
28
« on: November 20, 2012, 11:21:29 PM »
... If he's not FBI then maybe it just was a simple having to cover someone else off sick. ... :icon_idea:
29
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:36:25 PM »
... I feel that all the major segments of this world are under the sting...which might include, the justice system, the media, pharmaceuticals, finances, politics (?)
and then finally the public (including fans, the non-believers, who think murray is guilty)
:th_bravo:
This answer is close enough, for our purposes. In fact, the focus of the sting is not even the subject of Level 7 (that was Level 4--which had a lot of good investigation and discussion, but the fullest answer on this will not come until after BAM).
Broad perspective is close.
Makes the sting an artistic one ...
:icon_exclaim: :icon_exclaim: :icon_exclaim: ... and not a criminal one. :computer-losy-smiley: :computer-losy-smiley: :computer-losy-smiley:
30
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:19:20 PM »
... I just have to add, along with the sole reason we are speculating that Blount might be an FBI agent is because TS is pushing this theory and we are trying to resolve it somehow... the sole reason we accept that Blount was not scheduled to work that shift is because TS says so. The pic that was posted in 2009 of the LAFD shift schedule was never substantiated to be current on 6/25/09 (as it was posted at a later date--schedules can/do get changed), which is why the topic long ago got ditched. We are only running with this story line now because "TS says so"... unless I'm missing some information. Agreed, it is speculation that Blount is FBI, merely because I mentioned him--especially since that is NOT why I mentioned Blount. Also agreed that the schedule picture may not have been current on 6-25-09, and schedules can change. For the purpose at hand, though, it doesn't really matter; in fact, the point that schedules can change (even unexpectedly) is my main reason for bringing up Blount.
|
Show Posts
.... so TS ....