Show Posts

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 - larry141094

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2
Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: February 01, 2013, 07:41:38 AM »
*sigh* such childishness from so called "adults", red herrings will get you no where. Grow up

One of the biggest obstacles in most of the theories on this site is the comeback itself and its quite an obvious problem... the illegality of faking ones death.

Ignoring for a moment the lack of CREDIBLE hoax evidence and the other explanation of faking his death (to dissapear and not to come back). We now find ourselves in an obviously sticky situation... firstly, Michael has faked his death, which on its own is not REALLY illegal. Secondly, the state paid for his funeral, thirdly sales of his music spiked as a result and finally there is an innocent man who has been slandered, put in jail and humiliated for no other reason then to give Michael a scape goat.

Lets say June 25th 2013 is BAM! date (he said we have 4 years and imo this is the most likely date that a bam would occur) he somehow ends up performing live some place and shocking everyone... great show right?! Wrong... he'll be arrested straight away and his comeback will be for nothing. Firstly there's the faking of his death, which on its own would not really be cause for much legal trouble... except the fact that he used it to escape debt, get out of a contract early, put an innocent man behind bars and conspired with other people to keep the hoax hush hush.

Needless to say, there would be alot of unhappy people... particularly his family, who seem to not have a clue about this hoax, as they went to seriously disturbing lengths to challenge his will, which if they knew was redundent anyway, wouldnt have made such a mess of things over it.

No sane person would do this for the sake of entertainment, as the result would be a one way ticket to jail. The only reasonable explanations are he either A. Is not returing (and has harmed numerous people in the process) or is B. Dead (and is a victim of a stupid doctor).

Well he would HAVE to know, in order to fake an autopsy that had some pretty accurate information about Michael. But he wouldnt be the only one, the nurses and doctors at the hospital, the family most likely and dozens of other people

First things first, according to Michael's kids' birth certificates, MJ's full name is Michael Joeseph Jackson, he says it in his deposition, it says it on the 2005 trial, the Murray trial and on his death certificate.
This said, until August 2009 it was perfectly acceptable for one to legally use their shortened name on things like Credit Cards and Drivers Licenses, in this case, Joe.

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: February 01, 2013, 06:55:19 AM »
Before i goto actual topics, Souza, dont say im insulting members when i clearly am not. YOUR the one with the attitude here

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 08:37:54 PM »
Believe me it has changed quite alot... anyway. Enough about me, back to the hoax

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 08:14:54 PM »
-_- i stated why im here, im here because I could be wrong... i cant just assume im right because that is unscientific.
My position is irrelevent, any true fan would want the truth regardless of what it is.

If you cant deal with actually LOOKING at evidence and having false evidence displaced, then you shouldn't claim to be a hoax investigator...

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:36:34 PM »
Ok i fail to see how i insulted anyone here... but if you're going to be immature then so be it.

Souza, Bec said something completly different to you, i respected what she said because she gave me a GOOD reason to take it on board. This isn't about causes, i am not here to stir trouble. I am here because i could very well be wrong in my beliefs, i just happen to believe discourse is the best way of obtaining truth.

MJ BeLIEver, understand what the default position in a scientific study is, then you will understand what i mean. I dont make the rules up, the scientific method is clear on how to deal with conflicting ideas.

To those saying im contributing nothing, i disagree.

We have established some interesting things, like for example using other Californian court cases to point out that the extra star on the seal means nothing, i have suggested looking further into the missing tape and have so far read that the POLICE destroyed the tape... is that not of any value? We established that the ambulance photo could have been faked, although i have not explored this avenue further, i do believe the explanation would be far more simple than what has been suggested. We know, looking at legal documents that Michaels middle name is JOESEPH, but Joe is a legally valid alternative (doing a quick google search i double checked this, however i need to provide a good example which i am working on.)

TRUTH is important, and fresh perspectives help challenge the status quo and allows a more accurate view to surface... onwards!

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:16:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The extra star on the CA state seal is just a mistake made in production of the seal, believe it or not. That's how the real state seal appears in all CA court rooms. Refer to live feed from the Lohan trial for example. It is not a hoax clue, nor is it proof of the trial's alleged illegitimacy.

Larry has a point though. Until we stop ignoring the facts (example: above, long ago debunked info many refuse to acknowledge), we are merely fucking around here. This is not a singular example either. Frequently where I look on the forum, people are clinging to old, debunked info as if it were factual. Drags the whole thing down to irrelevancy. It's annoying.

The verdict did however refer to MJ as the "alleged" victim on the "alleged" date, as reviewed by the judge and read aloud by the court clerk, and to date I have not seen that reconciled.

However, Larry, MJ was formally and solely referred to as "Michael JOE Jackson" in all court documents and proceedings during the 2005 chi-mo trial. These documents are public record and retrievable via simple google search, posted on secure govt sites--no funny business. Michael JOE Jackson is also the name contained in the FBI files released in 2009, also available online through the official FBI site. So I think that's as legit as it gets when it comes to proof of MJ's legal name, or as legit as we PC jockeys can uncover in lieu of the holy grail of the BC (sealed!). Michael JOSEPH Jackson may well be a stage name, as it is the name used for several copyright related court proceedings prior to 2009, and all legal documents submitted in accordance with the "death".

We've also proven the "death" pic (ambulance photo) is fake, ie created. And not photoshop either, which would be uninteresting, and certainly not damning, but rather layered, which IS interesting, and IS, as you'll see, quite damning. IOW, it was created from 3 layers. First layer is a pic of MJ being worked on by paramedics within an ambulance interior. Second layer is the pattern or "proof" layer. Third layer is the sun glare and parked car reflection. Interesting proof to be sure, it suggests funny business going on. Funny business just to sell a pic to the tabloids? Sure. But it's more complicated then that considering how it must have been created, using a real pic of MJ really in an ambulance interior that matches actual ambulance 71 working in LA that day... how did NPG stage this pic WITHOUT the direct participation of MJ? That's the damning question, and that the damning evidence of hoax.

If this is all greek to you Larry, feel free to do a topic search here on the forum. This stuff is all so familiar to us that when conducting convo on the forum, we can refer to things without links, as everyone is expected to be up to speed on the info.

First, Souza ^^^^^^ This person is doing what we ALL should do. 3 years ago i was immature and stupid, i have finished school and am now in tertiary education. The truth MATTERS and so long as the possibility of being wrong is still here, i will continue to discuss. Souza just "knowing" is not even close to valid. I mean i could just "know" that Michael Jackson is dead, but that doesn't make it correct... this line of thinking is what kept humanity from the truth for so long, lets not go backwards here... unless we are  :moonwalk_:

Second, MJbeLIEver, i dont need to provide evidence of ANYTHING, i have the default position. Dont act like you know my intentions, because you dont, dont get so touchy about people having a different view.

Bec, thankyou for your post, it is very informative and intelligent, i wish more people were willing to DISCUSS like you are. That said i have looked into the photo and i agree it very well could have been faked, but the questions that remain are 1. WAS it actually faked and 2. What was the motive for faking it. We cant just apply any motive we want, we have to find the real one... or at least get a good indication.

Finally, Joe or Joeseph doesnt actually matter, if your name is Joeseph (like Michaels) you can legally use Joe. So i do beLIEve that this fact is irrelevent to the hoax

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:46:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
About the Joe-Joseph thing, I never participated in a previous discussion about this on this board (I'm only a member for a couple of months), but I had always thought his middle name was Joseph. A few months ago, I wasn't even aware that Joe was also used. Katherine wrote in her book (in the 80ies?) that she named him Michael Joseph. So actually I do think that his real legal name (at least at birth) is Joseph. He might have changed it later though.

Nevertheless, I think there's something strange going on with this name thing. Jermaine stated in his book that Michael's middle name has always been Joe, so he counterdicts his mother there. And if Michael Joe was on Michael's driver's license, why would the coroner's office change this to Joseph?

Larry, you want scientific evidence of the hoax? How about the extra star on the Californian seal at the trial? With no legal seal, no legal trial. And why would the trial not be legal if Michael was really dead? To me that is much much more than a 'whisper' or a 'clue'.

Show me, dont just state it, provide evidence.

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:47:05 AM »
Souza, if im not mistaken that would mean no pictures of legal documents found online would be of any validity in that case. That said, to the people saying i wont find evidence... i disagree, ANYTHING leaves some kind of trail and a conspiracy such as this would require a lot of perfection to get right... odds are, people would have made mistakes.

Now im not saying we should have a forensic investigation (because not only has that been done, but it would also be unrealistic) but the evidence of a conspiracy SHOULD be there... and it is... the dissapearence of security footage is one of the most damning pieces of evidence to suggest pre meditation OR at least a cover up. That's the evidence im looking into at the moment, because that is something real and isnt some false interpretation of something that isnt really there.

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 30, 2013, 09:36:33 PM »
Well im more of a Karl Popper myself, although the best way to find the truth IS to disprove as you could find evidence for just about anything. On Souza's comment, his name has always been Michael Joeseph Jackson, my evidence for this is his sons birth certificate You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And it is common for coroners to use multiple sources to identify a deceased person, so a drivers license isn't really that strange at all

So unless you have evidence to the contrary, the death certificate IS legally viable

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:15:11 AM »
Adi, an opinion does not require ANY evidence, thats why i stated "i believe, according to what i know". Evidence is required when you make a claim or an assertion.

MJ BeLIEver, common sense is not rationality (unfortunatly, look it up)

That said my issue with the things you listed are simply that they are theories to explain away actual evidence. If you claim legal documents fake, there needs to be evidence of that claim. The way you view MJ's relatives on TV is a subjective matter and no one can really know anything based on pure speculation.

When i say extraordinary i am using a level of interpretation, if i say "The car i own is black", that is a claim and not much evidence is required, mainly because there's no reason that any person would lie about the colour of their car, but also because black cars are a common thing. However if i say "I was abducted by aliens", a verbal story just wont cut it, because it is not a common event.

You understand what i mean? Yes there are theories and many of them are logical... however i cant start theorising until the current theory is displaced. And it is on the burden of the ones making the claim to displace it

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 30, 2013, 05:40:58 AM »
Im here to find that evidence myself.

The issue i have with your statement is your position that the view of the majority (AKA common sense) is a rediculous view to have. This kind of thinking destroys anything close to rational discussion from the get go.

The next thing is you said (i am assuming, correct me if im wrong) that there is no conclusive evidence to the why or how regarding the death of Michael Jackson... well the why is obviously unanswerable in terms of what i know. But the how has been established...

The final thing i just want to clear up is your missinterpretation of the burden of proof, in a rational argument, if one makes a claim, they must back it up with evidence, the more extraordinary the claim, the larger the amount of evidence that is required. It is claimed by the Corners office in LA that Michael Jackson died of Acute Propofol intoxication, death in this case isnt really out of the ordinary. However, the claim IS backed up by credible evidence. This is where the counter claim must start and thus far i haven't seen a claim that refutes the evidence.

In reply to Adi, firstly no hypothesis is null, that is an unfair assertion and secondly i have no hypothesis, i haven't really looked at enough counter claims to make a fair one. My position is simple, i believe that Michael Jackson is dead, according to what i know, my position remains open (as should everyones) to new evidence to the contrary.

Introduce yourself / Re: The Return
« on: January 30, 2013, 05:13:42 AM »
You didnt read the whole thing... obviously. And no not by MY reasoning, by Academia's reasoning. I go by the rules that allow us to discover truth, the part of my post that you quoted was the issues which prevents truth from being found.
As i said, im here because logically i could easily be wrong, the standards of science and logic bind any rational search for the truth and that includes mine.

Pages: [1] 2
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal