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 ... 16
1
« on: May 05, 2014, 07:55:24 AM »
BAM!!!!!The end comes SUDDENLY!
{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
BAM!!!!!
Finally ... the time that we have all been waiting for!
:multiplespotting: :th_bravo: :woohoo2: :moonwalk_: :icon_cool:  :icon_geek: :icon_mrgreen: :penguin: :TongueOutSmiley:
:abouttime: :LolLolLolLol:
To everyone who is new to the hoax forum—welcome! And you have a lot of reading to do, if you want to get a good understanding of the reasons for the hoax, etc.
To everyone who has been on the forum previously, but didn’t stay here until the BAM—welcome back! And you may also want to do some reading, and catch up on things that you missed while you were away.
To everyone who stayed here, and never left—congratulations! You decided to: “keep the faith NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS!!!!!!!!!!!” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
TS Is a Fake Informer!
For those who thought that TS is a fake informer, because there was no BAM by then end of 2012—I will quote from sweetsunsetwithMJ:
“HOAX = FAKE (not real)
TS = INSIDER (person who is giving us first hand info to make us understand this hoax, maybe from MJ’s inner circle??)
SO.....
TS = FAKE INFORMER (informer of the fake)
It took me a time to understand it but I’ve finally understood it.”
{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
TIAI Redirects for 10-27-13, & 5-5-14
{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Did anyone notice that the Dow Jones hit a new all-time high, for the first time in several years, on 3-5-13 {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}? And this was about three years after TS connected the market with the hoax, and specifically with the March 5 date: “God is fully capable of controlling world events. And in this case, the 666 low came on 3-6, which was only one day after the March 5 press conference in London. March 6 was a Friday, so the 7th and 8th were the weekend; but after the low on Friday, Monday March 9 was the start of the fastest six-month rally in US history.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Furthermore, believe it or not—as Adi noticed—the total days since June 25, 2009, is exactly 1776 (inclusive reckoning, as usual); this is the exact number that I used as the title and subtitle (see subsection 4-21), clear back in 2010, for that same Update #4.
{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
And did anyone notice when the S&P 500 closed at 1776—for the first time ever {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}?? How’s that for some fancy insider trading, LOL!?! Again, 1776 is the number of the days since 6-25-09, and 1776 is also the exact number in the title/subtitle of that Update #4 (777 + 999 = 1776). TS redirected to the S&P specifically on 10-27-13, which was more than half of a year in advance!
While some might be trying to calculate the odds, that all of this is just coincidence: others might begin to realize The Source, of the information that I’ve posted over the years.
{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
Level #7, Sign #7, Update #7
Level #7 was already finished, in 2012. For those who are interested in The Signs: the final one, Sign #7, will be the redirect for Saturday, May 10. And for those who have read the previous Updates: the final one, Update #7, will be the redirect for Monday, May 12. Update #7 will explain who I am, as well as The Source. For now, though, I will say that I’m not Front, and I’m not MJ (as I’ve said before); but Front is the real MJ
BAM!!!!!
Let’s do it one more time ...
BAM!!!!!
2
« on: December 27, 2012, 02:31:19 AM »
December 20 Tweet: “ #MichaelJackson Given that Murray’s Notice of Appeal was filed over a year ago, its unusual for the court not to know his appeal grounds.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray The Appeal Brief is the written document that sets out the grounds on which Murray will claim [h]is conviction was wrong.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray In October, the Appeals Court granted Murray’s lawyer a final extension until Friday 21 December to file his appeal brief.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray The Court made it clear in October that no further extensions of time for filing that Appeal brief would be granted.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray The Court then phoned Deputy Attorney General, Victoria Wilson: any objection to the bail motion to be filed by 31.12. 2012.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray So having made his bail motion, Murray’s lawyers then did exactly what they told would not be allowed by the Court in October.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray Yes, they asked for a 45 day extension in order to file their Appeal Brief. …” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 18 Tweet: “ #conradmurray The Court ruled today ‘Appellant’s December 18, 2012 application to extend time to file the opening brief is denied’.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 21 Tweet: “ @song_title We don't know formally what he’s actually appealing yet. Assume it’s conviction and sentence. Michael” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 21 Tweet: “ @lmt4mj There is normally no testimony on appeal- just points of law, apart from exceptional, new evidence cases. So #conradmurray won’t be.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 21 Tweet: “‘ @juliamjfan: @MMcParland News about Conrad Murray Mr. McParland? please?’ No news. No appeal brief was filed by 10.05 pm on the 21st.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 21 Tweet: “‘ @juliamjfan: @MMcParland but they have until dec 31st if I am not mistaking?’ No, they’re out of time now, but they’re exploiting the rules” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 22 Tweet: “ #conradmuray did NOT file his appeal brief with the Court by 21.12.2012 as needed. Check out the rules-spot the gap! You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 22 Tweet: “ @Kyahpooch Hi Mrs S, yes I did. I think Murray will still appeal. Check out my earlier TL about the gap in the rules. Best wishes, M” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 23 Tweet: “ @MJaddyy Probably released late November time next year, unless his earlier bail application or appeal succeeds.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 23 Tweet: “ @Ilive4u4me No. The court has already said there will be no further extensions.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 23 Tweet: “ @Ilive4u4me it’s the 15 day + gap caused by having to write to Murray telling him unless he gets his brief in his appeal will be dismissed.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} December 23 Tweet: “ @Ilive4u4me it’s not an automatic dismissal. He'll get that one dose of extra time. Won't help his bail application” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} 2012 California Rules of Court -- Rule 8.220. Failure to file a brief: “If a party fails to timely file [by 12-21-12] an appellant’s opening brief or a respondent’s brief, the reviewing court clerk must promptly notify the party by mail that the brief must be filed within 15 days after the notice is mailed and that if the party fails to comply, the court may impose one of the following sanctions: (1) If the brief is an appellant’s opening brief, the court may dismiss the appeal;” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}
3
« on: December 01, 2012, 11:16:38 PM »
... One date I noticed TS is the date you have for the burial in the quote below. I presume this is not a mistake or a typo and you have intentionally given us the date the burial was really filmed and then later beamed to the world on 9-3-09?:
#2. Direction could also be run on the scene by the FBI. In fact, 6-25-09 was the day that FBI had primary say over how things would be run; MJ picked the day, and time, and most of the rest was arranged by the FBI. The memorial (7-7-09) and burial (8-3-09) were events that MJ was the primary director (these were also the events with the Liberian Girl pictures). And even on 6-25-09, MJ could give remote directions, if needed, via encrypted e-mail {www.hushmail.com}.
No, typo; my bad, sorry. :icon_pale: :errrr: :computer-losy-smiley: :Crash: :over-react-smiley: ... fixed :icon_albino: Good eye! :smiley_abuv:
4
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:59:26 AM »
![]() “Finally, just like last time, I may play “DA” (devil's advocate)—and try to debunk things that are true, just to keep you on your toes!” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} Love to bec, and everyone else! :bearhug: :bearhug: :bearhug: P.S. @Front: what grade do I get? An “A”, an “F”, or an “N”?? :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
5
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:56:01 AM »
12 Evidences for DWDNow for a dozen evidences in support of the DWD theory. This is merely a review, so I won’t be repeating much of the details (they can be found in previous posts by me and/or others). And please pay attention to the difference between the reasons for the FBI choosing to use a DWD patient (which we may not fully understand), and the evidences that a real DWD patient was actually used (which we should all be able to understand). #1 Confusion of appearance (both with the real MJ, and also with the DWD patient); there would be no need for confusion of appearance, if a good MJ look-alike dummy was used, or live MJ. #2 The 3-5-09 WA DWD. If we dismiss this as merely a koinkidink, then why not dismiss all the other hoax koinkidinks? Besides, this is not “stand alone” evidence—it is evidence which fits perfectly into all the other points listed here. #3 Two “unknown” WA DWD death locations in 2009 (never any other “unknown” in WA, and no “unknown” in OR for the first 13 years). #4 TIAI redirected to the TMZ home page, shortly before the TMZ article that MJ killed himself (on 4-4 at 4am, 2010); and DWD patients must “ingest the medication unassisted”—they must kill themselves. #5 Paramedics said that it looked like a hospice patient (about 80% to 90% of DWD deaths were also hospice patients). Whether they are all in on the hoax, or not, there has been no good explanation for why they would lie about this. #6 The warm room on a summer day in California seems unnecessary, if it was a dummy or live MJ. #7 Nobody was allowed upstairs in the Carolwood home. A dummy could be kept in a locked case, until the “emergency” began; aside from a few seconds to take the dummy out of the case, and place it on the bed, there would never be any problem if someone not in the hoax went upstairs. The live MJ theory would also need little if any secrecy upstairs. #8 Reports from MJ fans that there was a lot of extra security at Carolwood on the night of June 24/25, 2009. This would be when the DWD patient was brought into the home (and also explains a reason for the missing CCTV). Like #7 above, a locked up dummy or live MJ would not need all that extra security. #9 The staff was dismissed, before bringing the body down to the ambulance (stated by Kai and Ben); this would not be needed, if there was a dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009 or live MJ. #10 The towel on the face (another precaution, in addition to dismissing the staff); again, this would not be needed, if there was a dummy or live MJ. This also provides another reason for staging the ambo pic in advance; if it was a dummy or live MJ, they could’ve arranged things to “accidentally” let Ben or Chris get a shot of loading MJ into the ambulance, or something. But if it was a DWD patient, a picture taken in real time would not work. #11 Sharon said that the body on the stretcher was too short for MJ. A dummy would be made to match the size of MJ, and would not be too short; and live MJ certainly would not be too short. We can try to minimize this evidence, by saying that Sharon did not have a good perspective of the patient on the stretcher, or Sharon is not a reliable witness, or whatever. However, with the DWD theory, you don’t have to come up with any such explanations—you can simply take it at face value, the patient looked shorter than Michael because the patient WAS shorter than Michael. Simple. #12 The verdict: “Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information.” The charge stated in context is “involuntary manslaughter”—not suicide, or assisted suicide; so even if the DWD patient method was illegal in CA, yet the patient would not be an actual victim of manslaughter (he would be an “alleged victim”). And especially with the FBI sting making the DWD method legal in CA, there is certainly no legal basis for the patient being an actual victim of manslaughter. We may not be able to positively verify all 12 of these points (such as the towel on the face); however, as I said already, we should take things at “face” value—unless there is good evidence that someone is lying. And in this case, all 12 evidences support the same simple conclusion; no need for any fancy back-flips, or complicated explanations. {see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} I am not listing the following as one of the twelve evidences, but La Toya did give a very clear clue less than ten minutes after TS first posted the DWD evidence: “What is everyone doing with the left overs?” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} And clear back in March of 2010 (Update #4), TS said: “… Or there was a real human corpse, which had recently died.” Notice that I did not mention a corpse in cold storage for a long time; and DWD fits exactly with a patient who had “recently died.” If all of this is merely the result of MJ trying to create an illusion, that it was a DWD patient—when in reality it was a dummy or live MJ—what would be the purpose? Can someone with an active imagination come up with a far-fetched explanation, for this slight possibility? No doubt. However, can anyone come up with solid evidence to support this idea—which is based neither upon imagination, nor upon far-fetched explanations? Not likely. Oh, and one last very important point: almost all of these 12 evidences support the hoax theory, and do not support the literal murder theory. I rest my case. :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley: :judge-smiley:
6
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:55:00 AM »
12 Reasons Supporting Live MJ Theory{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} #1. MJ was reported to be “Alive at UCLA”. #1. He was also reported as dying at UCLA. If the reports are true, then MJ is dead and there is no hoax. If the reports are partly true, then which is true and which is false? Perhaps the “alive” part is true, and the “at UCLA” part is false (along with the dying part). At best, this “alive” (at UCLA) report could be considered a clue—but a clue of what: the live MJ theory, or merely a clue that he is still alive? Also, if we went looking for clues: we could find corpse clues (in addition to dummy clues), such as the TMZ article about finding a corpse one morning at the Murray court. For the record, I’m not saying that a dummy was never used during the hoax; for example, La Toya perfectly described a dummy in the casket, that continued for weeks just as good as new! :suspect: :animal0017: :suspect: :icon_lol: So we have to be careful not to apply clues to the wrong time or event. #2. Allows for on-the-scene direction/consultation in case anything unforeseen ocurred which required on-the-spot changes or alterations in the plan. #2. Direction could also be run on the scene by the FBI. In fact, 6-25-09 was the day that FBI had primary say over how things would be run; MJ picked the day, and time, and most of the rest was arranged by the FBI. The memorial (7-7-09) and burial (9-3-09) were events that MJ was the primary director (these were also the events with the Liberian Girl pictures). And even on 6-25-09, MJ could give remote directions, if needed, via encrypted e-mail {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}. #3. Completely eliminates the risk that the hoax will be ruined by MJ being discovered safe and hiding somewhere else, or sneaking away shortly before 6/25/09, when he is supposed to be suddenly dead/dying at UCLA that day. #3. Everyone here already knows how good MJ is at disguising himself. Back when he went door to door as a Jehovah’s Witness: even when he was not wearing a disguise, people would tell him that he looked a lot like MJ (and yet some never realized that it WAS indeed MJ himself). So if anyone happened to see him on or after 6-25-09, even if he was not wearing a disguise, they would most likely conclude that it was a look-alike or a double—especially if he had already left town, and was seen somewhere other than LA. And with a disguise, which he would almost certainly wear on 6-25-09, there would be almost no chance of the hoax getting ruined because someone saw him. The live MJ to UCLA theory also poses the same basic problem, once he shifted from patient mode to escape mode. #4. MJ had to leave Carrolwood somehow, at some point, same as above, allows MJ to not be discovered/seen leaving Carrolwood anytime sooner or later then reported. #4. But he could leave Carolwood, in the middle of the night, with disguises and the extra security, and nobody would know who came or went (that is, if he ever even came home from that last rehearsal). #5. Eliminates the need for MJ to hide, be disguised, travel to, and arrange for insiders at a 2nd or 3rd location as would be necessary to coordinate if escaping via another means. #5. I don’t see how live MJ to UCLA would “eliminate” the need for disguise or escape, etc, it would only delay this need for a few hours. #6. Allows MJ to have photos taken as reported for gurney and autopsy, ensuring that those photos cannot be discovered too early (them being discovered to be in existence pre 6/25/09 would be a big problem), nor will those photos show up too late to potentially rouse suspicion of someone in a paperwork position not in on the hoax (autopsy was performed 6/26 so those pics needed to exist by then). #6. Most of us have already agreed that the ambo pic was staged in advance, and edited with a little Photoshop help; so gurney and autopsy pics could also be staged in advance, and edited, without much if any more risk than the staged ambo pic. #7. Allows emergency workers to be able to accurately recall events because MJ is really there on the stretcher (probably really wearing that gown). Live simulations could be run through, in the time allowed at each location, to allow workers to have real memories, rather then fabricated alibis. MJ is not dealing with seasoned actors here, and they’re playing the role of their lives, so it is best if people are given an opportunity to have something real to remember. #7. This is a good point. However, it fits even better—even more realism—with a DWD patient. #8. Allows validation of the official story should anyone not in on the hoax happen to catch a quick glimpse of the stretcher going by at any point along the way, they would really see MJ. #8. Someone did catch a quick glimpse of the stretcher (Sharon), and she reported that it did NOT look like MJ, yet the hoax was not ruined. #9. Allows for unforeseen occurrences to be encountered (ambulance break down, unauthorized peaks through windows in locked doors, etc) because, just as reported, MJ is indeed just where he is supposed to be. #9. Yes, but which unforeseen circumstances carry the most risk? A live and healthy MJ, who can’t play dead for too long? A dummy, that would certainly look like MJ, and do a great job of playing dead (but would be disastrous if discovered by any unforeseen paramedics, doctors, or nurses)? Or a real dead patient, who fit all the criteria of the official story (other than facial features—which were thoroughly covered and disguised, with various medical paraphernalia, etc)? And worst case, this last option could be dismissed as a distraction or decoy if needed; but live MJ or dummy would be very difficult to explain as a decoy or distraction. #10. Shortly after the ambulance arrives, the fire alarm was pulled in the portion of UCLA that MJ was reportedly in on 6/25/09, effectively minimizing the unauthorized opportunities outlined in points 8 & 9. #10. Perhaps someone could verify the timing of the fire alarm at UCLA. Whenever it was pulled, it could be used for distraction purposes whether there was live MJ, dummy, or DWD patient. #11. Gives MJ a perfect escape out of UCLA, because again, he could do exactly as is reported and take the helicopter to the waiting coroner van. If he chose to go a different direction, even last minute, there would be dozens of other escape plans A-Z to explore out of the highly trafficked UCLA campus. #11. If MJ did not go to UCLA, he would not need any perfect plan to escape from UCLA via helicopter or any other method. The DWD patient, or any other corpse for that matter, could be sent via the helicopter; and if anyone working close to the body saw that it didn’t look like MJ (which is not likely, being completely covered), the ones in charge would tell them it was a distraction. #12. Gives the official story a consistently interwoven element of truth; MJ really was attended by paramedics at Carrolwood, MJ really did go to UCLA, MJ really did get transported via helicopter, MJ really did go to the coroner’s office. #12. The same could be said if the DWD patient was named “Michael JOSEPH Jackson” (see #11 in the previous post, 12 Reasons Against Dead Body Theory). In fact, this would give the story even more elements of truth: such as MJ really died, etc. #13. Explains why MJ’s kids stopped crying when they were done seeing their dad’s body, the scene as described by LaToya. They stopped crying because they saw Dad’s not dead. #13. This is a very interesting point. It indicates that the children were not initially in on the hoax, and therefore would react with real emotions—which would be very convincing for anyone at the house, and at UCLA, etc. This also explains why La Toya said MJ told Paris, on 6-24-09, what to do if he died; there would be no point in MJ saying this, if Paris already knew about the hoax for the next day. Both La Toya and Katherine said that the children never cried again, after seeing MJ in the hospital (so much for Paris crying on stage at the memorial); so this would be when they were informed of the hoax. And seeing MJ alive at UCLA would certainly stop their tears; but there is another possibility which would also stop their tears: seeing that it was a different MJ who died (as well as family members explaining the hoax to them, at that point). Oh, and one last thing here: if live MJ was on the bed at Carolwood (playing sick), or even a dummy, why did Alvarez rush the children back out of the bedroom almost before they finished entering it—what were they NOT supposed to see up close? #14. Explains Jermaine’s “slip up” airport comment. Jermaine said MJ wasn’t “with us long before he went to the airport… I mean hospital.” … which is 100% accurate. Just like Jermaine said. He said he meant hospital, and if we can’t trust Jermaine’s word as a true clue, what CAN we trust? #14. As I’ve said already: we should take things at face value, unless there are strong reasons to believe otherwise. Even the media reports of MJ’s death—we only reject these things because of overwhelming evidence of the hoax. As far as Jermaine’s comment: for the public, taking it at face value means that MJ went to UCLA and not the airport (and the word “airport” was merely a blundering goof); and we should also accept this conclusion, if there were no strong evidences of the hoax. For us, however, since we already knew about the hoax long before this statement: taking it at face value means that MJ went to the airport, and not UCLA (and the word “hospital” was used, because the interviewer asked what he meant, and he could not say the truth, that MJ flew away into hiding, without ruining the hoax). Speaking of flying away, some even suggested that MJ went to the airport, but did not get on a plane, merely because Jermaine only said “airport”. However, people don’t usually go to the airport to buy shoestrings. And Jermaine could not get away with saying: “… long before he went to the airport, and hopped on a plane, and flew to --- oooppss, I mean hospital!” That just would not “fly”, as an accidental goof. So Jermaine could only insert one clue word, and then he went back to the official version. And if that word was a clue, then we should asses the purpose and meaning of the clue. How many misleading clues have we received, from the Jackson family? Are there any, other than Joe’s allegedly false clue about doubles (and in fact doubles is a topic of wide disagreement, even among hoax believers)? #15. Changes the least amount of variables from the official story. The only thing that isn’t true is MJ being dead. #15. It seems that a DWD patient named Michael JOSEPH Jackson would change even less from the official story, than the live MJ theory—including it would be true that MJ is dead. In fact, it would even be true that MJ killed himself (self-administered the lethal medication).
7
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:53:48 AM »
12 Reasons Against Dead Body Theory{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} #1. The chances of someone other then MJ that looks enough like MJ to fool everyone ( double) dying of natural means (or Propofol) in accordance with the numerology, perfectly on time, who also happened to be residing at Carrolwood that day is a statistical impossibility. #1. Agree. #2. Assisted suicide or DWD is against the law in California. California penal code section 401: Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages a person to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony. MJ, Murray, and AEG would all be guilty in accordance with the wording of the law. #2. Disagree (see my previous post, on DWD legalities). #3. A real body would need to get into Carrolwood somehow and at some point. On 6/25/09, the staff was sent out of the house before the stretcher came down indicating that they were not in on, so therefore would need to be shielded from the body’s arrival as well. #3. Agree. And actually, this is a point in favor of DWD (see #8 in my next post, 12 evidences for DWD). #4. A real body would need to be stored until go time. Dead bodies are messy n ought not be stored in private residences and few private residences would be set up to properly house a corpse. This is a public health risk that would necessitate specific accommodations. This is also a zoning violation (at best), and potentially a small string of misdemeanors and minor felonies resulting from abuse of a corpse, tampering with a corpse, others. #4. With a DWD patient, you don’t need to store a corpse until go time (see also answer to #15, below). #5. If a real body were frozen to facilitate storage, it would be at the wrong temperature to fool emergency workers, and by the time the core was thawed, the outer tissues would be mush. Additionally, once-frozen-now-thawed tissue is distinctive and shows up clearly upon autopsy. #5. Again, this is not a problem with a DWD patient. #6. A fresh dead corpse would be subject to rigor mortis within minutes and lasting for hours, making entubulation of the airway/locating and tapping a vein impossible. #6. Rigor mortis could also occur if the real MJ died that day—so whether a DWD patient, or the real MJ, this poses no problem even if none of the paramedics were in on the hoax. #7. It was reported that the body was ID’ed from MJ’s driver’s license at the hospital. Neither a DWD patient nor a random corpse could be ID’ed as MJ from a pic of MJ. #7. Agree. However, this same problem exists with either a dummy or live MJ. Somebody in the hoax is the only solution, then, for body identification. #8. UCLA spokesperson did not make a statement in the death of MJ, counter to what is typical with a high profile death at a hospital. Instead, Jermaine Jackson made the statement. UCLA specifically dodged making any kind of statement regarding MJ at all, rather printing the family’s prewritten words instead. #8. There were two different deaths: the DWD patient (real death), and real MJ (fake death). The DWD patient was not a celebrity, so his real death would not be a “high profile” death—and therefore no need for UCLA to make any public statement about it. The real MJ would be “high profile”; but UCLA did not announce it, because it was not a real death. #9. No doctor came forward initially to sign the death certificate. If there were a real body entering UCLA that day, there should be no problem getting a DC for it signed. #9. This is about the same as the last one. Two deaths means two death certificates: one real DC (which we never saw), and one fake DC (not signed by the doctors in the hoax, because it was not a real death). #10. The body wouldn’t look like MJ and ambulance/gurney/autopsy pics clearly depict MJ, and not an apparent hospice patient as was testified by paramedics. #10. Agree. Yet your own statement here admits that there was an actual discrepancy between the pictures, and the testimonies—yet nobody even blinked their eyes, except for us “crazy” people in hoaxland who bother to notice things that the “sane” world ignores. :icon_lol: #11. Makes the entire story, start to finish, a lie. MJ was not attended by paramedics at Carrolwood, MJ didn’t go to UCLA, MJ didn’t get transported via helicopter, MJ did not go to the coroner’s office. #11. As already discussed in previous levels, a sting incorporates deceptive elements (along with factors to avoid entrapment). Furthermore, the dummy theory would also have deceptive elements, as well as the live MJ theory. However, the DWD patient provides the least deception, and the most realism and honesty—at least for the paramedics and doctors who testified. Some of those in on it, even knowing that it was a sting, may have been reluctant or even refused to testify lies at the trial. Providing a real patient, going through all the real steps in the process, and even giving the real name of Michael JOSEPH Jackson—these things would allow honest testimonies, with a straight face. See the following article on name changes, notice especially CA law. {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} #12. Both paramedics that testified attested that the patient looked like MJ. A DWD patient or random corpse are not going to resemble MJ enough for both paramedics to testify that they recognized him. #12. Notice that Senneff, who most of us agree is in the hoax, did not say that he “recognized” the patient as being “familiar” (the real Michael JOE Jackson). However, he did admit that “at some point” he "learned" that the patient was “Michael Jackson” (in other words, Michael JOSEPH Jackson). Quite the opposite, Blount testified that he “recognized” the patient “immediately” when he “entered the room”—which would be almost impossible, considering all the appearance confusing factors with both the real MJ, and with the patient on the bed (I have already documented all these things in previous posts, and won’t repeat them here). So if Blount is in the hoax, then he gave a scripted line. Or if Blount is not in the hoax, then he just made an assumption about the patient being MJ—considering the location, and general appearance of the patient. Also, if we accept Sharon’s testimony as accurate, then later Blount had concluded (after working closely with the patient for a while) that the patient did not look like MJ after all. Again, if Blount is in, then Blount was following script, and there is no problem with the DWD patient not looking like MJ; and if Blount is not in, then the testimony of Sharon fits perfectly with a DWD patient. #13. No IV drip was witnessed suspended above the patient in the stretcher gif and if a real person was being attended in a medical emergency, and was reportedly already ported with an IV when paramedics arrived, after 42 minutes of attendance during which they are treating him as not dead and administering IV injections, it is extremely unlikely that the patient would not be started on fluids within that amount of time. #13. If all paramedics were in, this also poses no problem. If some were not in, the lack of IV drip could be explained that the patient was already dead quite a while before the paramedics arrived, and they were taking the patient to the hospital because a higher authority required it. #14. The official story is that Dr. Cooper was able to rouse some heart activity in the patient at UCLA for several minutes. This would be impossible if she were working on a stored corpse, and nearing impossible on a DWD patient who had consumed suicide medication 1 hour (or more) prior. #14. Agree. However, most of us here already believe that Cooper was in on the hoax, calling the hoaxy 2:26 death time, etc. #15. If the patient were a DWD patient, then rescue efforts such as those described having been administered to MJ violates ethics on the part of MJ, Murray, and AEG (and any other potential producers/financial backers of DH), for knowingly allowing a person who’s will it was to end their life peacefully under their own control, be subjected to extreme methods of resuscitation for an extended duration of time. Successful or not, this action is a direct violation of this patient’s end of life wishes. #15. People often agree to be organ donors. While still alive, a DWD patient can give consent for his body to be used for artistic, medical, scientific, and/or other purposes, etc. #16. Because of points 4, 5, 6, and 7, the paramedics and ER emergency Dr.’s are required to be in on it, so we lack motive of who the real body is designed to fool. #16. There can be other reasons for using a real body, than just fooling someone. For example, more realism and honesty in testimonies (see #11, above). Another reason could be related to the sting. In addition to these reasons, though, we still have the possibility of an unexpected person getting into the mix. Even if we could prove that all paramedics who showed up at Carolwood were in the hoax, and all UCLA staff that dealt with the body were in the hoax (and this would be tough to prove at best, if not impossible): yet that would only be dealing with what actually happened, and not with what could’ve happened unexpectedly. What if one of the paramedics, who was planned to be dealing directly with the body, got very sick and could not make it to work on June 25, 2009? More likely even than unplanned paramedics getting in the mix, would be unplanned UCLA staff. Sure, you can lock doors; but some of the staff have top security clearances, and keys to all the doors. There would probably be at least three shifts of people in this category—and what if one of them happened to be at the hospital during their unscheduled hours (perhaps they forgot something from the previous shift, and came by to get it, or whatever). If they learned about MJ arriving, they would probably want to dive in and “help out”. If that person discovered a dummy, or a perfectly healthy live MJ, they could blow the whistle and spoil everything.
8
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:52:01 AM »
DWD Legalitiesbec: “For the record, I don't have a problem with assisted suicide at all. If it ever came up on a ballot in my state I would vote for it. That is not my problem with this theory.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} bec: “This [alleged legal problems] is what makes Point #1 [DWD] against dead body point #1, but it's also the hardest thing to explain, for me, somehow. I always end up with a novel.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} First, I’m going to answer this legal aspect, in a separate post, because it is somewhat lengthy; then I will reply to the rest. The strongest argument so far against the DWD theory, is the legalities; aside from that, many were ready to accept DWD—and a few still accepted DWD, in spite of the legalities. I am glad that people are not accepting what I say, merely because I say it; I have never complained about anyone questioning what I say. On the other hand, though, when challenged: I have often replied with undebunkable evidence that what I said is true (such as the timing of the 911 call, etc). It is unlikely that MJ and/or the FBI would plan to break the law intentionally; however, as I’ve already said, a good investigator should keep feelings out of the formula, as far as possible, and examine the evidence. Likewise, a good investigator should not entirely dismiss the possibility that something illegal was done, merely because you think that a certain person or agency would not break the law; instead, you should examine the evidence of what was done, and whether or not the evidence points to a legal or illegal situation. In this case, the evidence points to the fact that a DWD patient in CA would not be illegal, at least not in an FBI sting. And I will present three categories of evidence to support this conclusion: California Law, Answers From a DWD Specialist, and State Law Versus Federal Law. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - California LawCalifornia law says: “Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}. It is true that laws are subject to interpretation—which is why we have attorneys, and courts, and judges, and juries, etc. Say for example a teenager was depressed, because her boyfriend just broke up with her. Then a man came along, handed her a gun, and said: “Well, just shoot yourself, and get it all over with.” Even then, the girl was hesitant; so he continued: “If I was in your shoes, that’s what I would do; so go ahead, don’t be afraid, just pull the trigger!” In this case, surely the man would be guilty of a “felony” (even in this case, though, it doesn’t say “murder”). He provided the “aid” for suicide (gun), he “advised” in favor of suicide (shoot yourself), and he even “encouraged” suicide (I would do it, don’t be afraid, etc). Now notice that the CA law does not say: “Every person who ALLOWS suicide is guilty of a felony.” For example, let’s say that the girl already had a gun in her hand, and when the man found her she was already planning to pull the trigger. But the man convinced her to get into his car, go to his house, and talk with his wife; after that, if she still wanted to kill herself, they would not make any efforts to stop her (they would ALLOW it). In this case: the man and his wife did not “aid” suicide (they did not provide the gun), they did not “advise” suicide (she was already planning to commit suicide), and they did not “encourage” suicide (at no time did they say anything in favor of her pulling the trigger). And there is yet one more HUGE difference between both of the above examples, and a DWD patient. With the DWD patient, unlike the teenage girl, the person is terminally ill and already on the brink of death. Also, the phrase “ assisted suicide” usually refers to prescribing and/or supplying the end of life medication (this would be the “aid” part, in the CA law). So FBI agents bringing a DWD patient to CA would not be giving suicide “aid” (they did not prescribe or supply the medication); and they would not be giving suicide “advice” (the patient had already counseled on the matter with qualified personnel in WA, and had already decided in favor of DWD). But if they tell the DWD patient that they need him to take his medication, at a certain time, in order to help an FBI sting and/or an MJ hoax—that would “encourage” suicide, right? Not so fast. Read again my previous DWD post, and pay attention to what I said and what I did not say: “No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours …” Is there anything here about telling the DWD patient that they needed him dead, at a certain time, for a sting and/or a hoax? If the patient was already planning to take the medication, days or weeks earlier—and the FBI convinced him to wait until arriving at Carolwood—it is likely that he would voluntarily choose to take his medication, shortly after arriving (and the exact time of death is unknown, remember?). In this case, they would not be encouraging suicide; if anything, they would be encouraging him to delay suicide (and therefore they helped him to extend his life). Some have noticed that my wording is at times merely suggestions, and possibilities. In some cases, I am suggesting different options for others to research. In some cases, I am not stating something with any certainty, because there is not much if any strong enough evidence to prove things one way or another (such as one or two DWD patients in CA). However, in some case, it’s true that I actually do not know for sure what happened; I said very early, that I don’t know everything about the hoax. And in this case, I do not know exactly what the FBI agents told the DWD patient—nor does MJ himself know, for that matter. And most likely, the FBI is not going to disclose those kind of details to anyone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Answers From a DWD SpecialistThe following answers come from a specialist in the field of DWD situations. The answers here are in harmony with the conclusions in the above section (California Law). Situation: What if I have a relative in Washington (WA), who goes through all the legal DWD procedures there, and obtains end of life medication from a qualified WA doctor, etc. But then before taking the medication, he comes to visit family living in California (CA). While in CA, his case gets worse and he does not want to travel back to WA before taking his end of life medication. Question #1: Is he in violation of WA law, merely because he is not located in WA State when ingesting the medication? Answer #1: The answer is once meds are obtained it does not matter where they are taken. Question #2: And more importantly, would the relatives in CA be required by law to physically stop him, and/or call 911, merely because there are no DWD laws in CA? And if the relatives did not try to stop him or call the cops, would they be guilty of a crime? Answer #2: One is not required to stop or call authorities, but family or friends should be on the “same page” as the person taking the meds. … See also the following e-mail, from the Washington State Department of Health. {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - State Law Versus Federal LawIn spite of the previous information, no doubt some would argue that merely allowing DWD in CA is a “gray area”, at best. And it’s possible that someone who allowed DWD in CA could be charged with a crime, and if charged there is also a possibility that the court would find them guilty. However, last but not least: in some cases, federal agents are not subject to state laws. A most striking and terrible abuse of this fact can be found in the case of FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi—who shot and killed an unarmed female, Vicki Weaver. “FBI HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi was indicted for manslaughter in 1997 by the Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutor just before the statute of limitations for the crime of manslaughter expired, but the trial was removed to federal court and quickly dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} Certainly FBI agents would be required to obey state laws, whenever they are off duty; and it is very likely that any court would also find them subject to state laws, if they were merely helping out with something artistic (like a movie). However, if they were performing a serious sting operation for real criminal investigation, then CA courts would have little if any power to enforce CA state law on them. Therefore, understanding Level 7 makes it very clear that there is real criminal sting, and not merely the FBI helping MJ to produce an artistic sting. Does anyone remember me saying something like this before?
9
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:30:26 AM »
I'm expecting a post at 11:30....just like the clock that was posted so long ago. "It's close to midnight...."
:th_bravo:
... I knew you'd push it to the wire, TS(_comments). You're so predictable.
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: @MJ: nice to see you post in this thread! :icon_e_surprised: :icon_e_surprised: :penguin:
10
« on: November 29, 2012, 05:57:21 PM »
Still no TS?
Maybe he is waiting for the right time to post...like 11:29 ? :icon_cool:
Remember, the hoax is based on CA time; so I still have about eight hours left of 11-29-12. Meanwhile: :icon_bounce: :icon_rolleyes: :compute: :computer-losy-smiley: :Pulling_hair: :screaming-7365: :LolLolLolLol:
11
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:17:05 AM »
I have read all of the posts up to this point, and unfortunately I don't have enough time make a reply to every post.
So in the interest of finishing in the next couple of days: I would request bec, in the next day or so, to compile a list of up to about a dozen reasons against the DWD and/or corpse theory—and also up to about a dozen reasons for the live MJ and/or dummy theory (or whatever other theory you want to include). You may use new reasons, and/or review previous reasons posted by yourself and/or others. Please number each point, so that I can reply to each point directly by number.
:argue:
After I give my replies, others may continue to investigate on this thread as long as they wish; but I probably will not be posting here much if at all after that, at least not before BAM.
:affraid:
12
« on: November 27, 2012, 10:01:00 AM »
... they could also be giving out distraction clues for the many hoaxers of differing theories. Jermaine and Marlon (I think) were wearing T-shirts that said Bahrain and Ireland, hinting to hoaxers that maybe MJ was there, but now TS said he was joking that it's hard to take a car to Bahrain. Often things that appear contradictory are actually just misinterpretations of what is said. :icon_bounce: In this case, I was joking about MJ leaving from LA on June 25, 2009, and driving directly to Bahrain in a car--that, of course, was a joke. But just because MJ did not go direct from LA to Bahrain on 6-25-09 (via car--or even airplane or boat), does not mean that he has never once been in Bahrain since the day he "died". Elvis, for example, has traveled around quite a bit during his "dead" life.
13
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »
... So, let me get my flag :smiley-vault-misc-150: and say to you that I cannot apologize enough for that and I hope you can forgive me for that. Absolutely! :bearhug:
14
« on: November 23, 2012, 02:03:05 PM »
Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the Thanksgiving leftovers on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol: It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity. Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death. It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login; You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login}. Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method. Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy. Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day. On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009? Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues? And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09? Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?
15
« on: November 23, 2012, 01:47:22 PM »
... P.S. Wishing TS and everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving :icon_razz:
With L.O.V.E. always.
Thank you! :icon_razz: And I hope that everyone had a very nice Thanksgiving, with family and/or friends.
|
Show Posts
