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 - Mish1981
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
16
« on: October 27, 2011, 10:56:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
OMG! What is going on? Murry goes to the hospital? [youtube]You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login[/youtube]
Why is it I can never get YT vids to post on this new forum? /pull hair/
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdooR1NBtlU&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Whaaaa? LOL?
MsTrinity, are you clicking the youtube button and pasting the link in between?
Question - Did White finish his testimony today? If he didn't and there is court tomorrow I wonder if this is a replay of 2005 when Michael was told to leave the hospital to get to court. It will be interesting to see if Murray is still in the hospital tomorrow morning and what the judge will do? Will he make Murray come to court regardless or will he postpone court until Murray is well enough to return? IF this has nothing to do with the hoax, I hope everything is alright with Murray!
17
« on: October 26, 2011, 01:02:06 PM »
I do have some questions about The Illusionists though.
One, is...when was this movie made, so Michael could've related to it. Or was it made to pattern Michael's hoax?
It was released Dec. 2010, well after the hoax began, so strange...
Two, is this a remake? ?
It is released by SONY PICTURES CLASSICS. Classics!!! WHAT??
They just said Randy and Janet were "charmed" by Ruby. Smiled at her throughout. Said "she's sweet"!!! WHAT???
According to IMBD it was released in 2006 and I know I watched it before 6/25/09.
18
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:42:33 PM »
Guys, has any of you seen The Illusionist? I didn't, so I need to digg into the plot more now.
A few ideas that i read so far:
-Leopold finds out from Uhl, who was following the couple, that Sophie has met with Eisenheim. While drunk, Leopold confronts Sophie and accuses her of being a whore. She tells him that she will not marry him or have anything to do with his plan. When she attempts to leave, he appears to murder her in the stables with a sword cut across her neck. Unfortunately, Leopold's royal status makes any accusations against him unthinkable, despite an existing belief among the people that Leopold has murdered a woman in the past. As Eisenheim plunges into despair and the citizens of Vienna begin to suspect Leopold of Sophie's murder, Uhl observes Eisenheim's actions more closely on behalf of Leopold.
-In the next scene, Uhl is shown leaving the Imperial Palace. After he takes a few steps, a boy (Elias Bauer) runs up to hand him a folio labeled "Orange Tree." This time, the "Orange Tree" folio is filled with plans detailing a geared mechanism to make the tree "grow". Uhl demands to know where the child obtained the folio; the child reveals that Eisenheim had given it to him. Uhl spots Eisenheim wearing a disguise and follows him to the train station. After the chase, a montage shows Uhl piecing together how Eisenheim faked Sophie's death and framed the Crown Prince. And while one may think that Uhl would be enraged at Eisenheim, he is actually very much amused. Meanwhile, Eisenheim is seen walking up to a house in the country where Sophie is waiting for him.
Can anyone confirm that Sophie was supposedly murdered but in fact it was all an illusion and she is really alive in the end? And the plan is revealed?
That is exactly how the movie goes. In the end when Uhl is questioning Eisenheim because (during the entire movie he is trying to show that Eisenheim is a fraud with no luck), anyway, he goes back to everything that happened and realizes how it happened. By the time he is done thinking and putting all of the pieces together Eisenheim has vanished. So in the end he does realize that Sophie is alive and that it was another illusion done by Eisenheim.
19
« on: October 25, 2011, 10:36:47 AM »
I'm not sure what there is to figure out. The 911 call that is of value to us and to the trial is the conversation between Alvarez and the call center operator. THAT call/conversation began a few seconds after 12:21. THAT is the call we've been listening to for 2+ years. Not sure what is causing confusion here.
But for those that are SO sure that what they heard in court yesterday debunks TS (and everything he's brought forth for 2 years now)...the $999 is still open as far as I know. With Xmas coming...why not try to debunk TS with REAL evidence and win some spending $ for your trouble?
With L.O.V.E. always.
I went back and read 4c as Souza was kind enough to point out and I have to agree, I don't see where the confusion is setting in. As you said we've been given the same call for over 2 years with the same time on it. That has never changed. @Bethechange - you took the words right out of my mouth.
20
« on: October 25, 2011, 10:17:03 AM »
For the life of me I can't remember who brought it up in chat during the trial yesterday but, someone mentioned that Katherine might not even be in California at the end of this week due to an engagement she has in London. So, saying that this is true, then is Janet taking the place of Katherine in court so there are family members there or is there something else going on. It's interesting that she makes this statement that she needs to be with her family and it's important that they are together, but Katherine is going to London to help promote a movie?
21
« on: October 24, 2011, 07:55:24 PM »
Is it just me or there is someone photoshopped in that picture??? The white-haired man with white tie on the right.........
![]()
Yes, the picture is definitely photoshopped. What about the bald dude sitting just in front of that white-haired man? It looks like they were added to the picture later. Where did you find it Paula?
In this link
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Thank you. I've got an opinion about the photoshopped people in the picture. Maybe they couldn't go to the photo shooting and missed it and they were added to the picture with photoshop later. This can be the explanation of it. But what is the explanation of 32 stars in the seal?
I agree that it's a possibility my only thought is, couldn't they have done a better job? Not to be rude but if it were between having a botched photo like this or having to reschedule the photo shoot, I would opt for rescheduling it. Perhaps we're missing something.
22
« on: October 24, 2011, 10:29:35 AM »
Still the autopsy pic doesn't look any like Michael to me. The one who made this ITC picture, she added it on the autopsy pic and that's how the shape of the eyes and eye-brows changed. In the original autopsy pic, it is not like that and the shape of the eyes and eye-brows are not Michael's. Unless they changed it all on the photoshop. It's funny to see people think Michael would pose for this picture. Why would he? When there's something called Photoshop, he doesn't need to pose for the pic. And that is definitely not Michael in that pic imo. Not his body, not his face.
Plus, as I recall Michael hated being photographed naked. That's one thing he despized greatly as it was traumatic to him. Why would he pose for a photo naked when he was traumatized the last time it happened?
I think that Michael posed for the photo (and the gurney photo), even if this particular photo is photoshopped, which since we are all going in circles trying to figure out if it is Michael, a photoshop job or dummy would make sense. Why not have Michael pose for the picture and then photoshop it so it does look like him but not quite what we are use to seeing. Not only that but I have said this over and over again, these photos did not need to be taken on 6/25. Who's to say that these photos weren't taken some time before which would be another reason for us to scratch our heads. As for posing naked for the photos, we have the slightest idea what is under that black square. For all we know he could have shorts on or briefs. That could be one of the reasons why the black square is so big. Also, if we look at it from a "movie" perspective then it's not really posing nude it's playing a part/acting. I am more then positive that 'make-up' was used in areas, probably for coloration etc. Also if it were me I wouldn't want to have a stand in doing it or a dummy I would want to do it myself. I also think that Michael would want control over this aspect of his creation, what better way of doing it then doing it himself.
After last time, I seriously doubt Michael would do this again. I mean come on guys, let's be realistic here.
I can only speak for myself but it's surprising what people are capable of when they have the right motivation. I was just throwing out options there's no need for the "I mean come on guys, let's be realistic here." comment. That's all anyone does here unless they have stone cold hard facts, we are all just throwing around opinions based on what we see and as time goes by we weed thru. So unless someone can confirm that this is nothing more then a photoshop job or a dummy then my thought isn't too far out there. Again just my own personal thought: I am sure that is an experience he would never want to go thru again and rightfully so, how ever the circumstances are different and he is in charge. Just like he was in charge (I'm pretty sure) of 'You Are Not Alone' and the only thing saving him from fulfilling some girls dream was a thin cloth. Being realistic is a hard thing to do when you look at the person behind the curtain pulling all the stings.
23
« on: October 24, 2011, 10:12:30 AM »
Still the autopsy pic doesn't look any like Michael to me. The one who made this ITC picture, she added it on the autopsy pic and that's how the shape of the eyes and eye-brows changed. In the original autopsy pic, it is not like that and the shape of the eyes and eye-brows are not Michael's. Unless they changed it all on the photoshop. It's funny to see people think Michael would pose for this picture. Why would he? When there's something called Photoshop, he doesn't need to pose for the pic. And that is definitely not Michael in that pic imo. Not his body, not his face.
Plus, as I recall Michael hated being photographed naked. That's one thing he despized greatly as it was traumatic to him. Why would he pose for a photo naked when he was traumatized the last time it happened?
I think that Michael posed for the photo (and the gurney photo), even if this particular photo is photoshopped, which since we are all going in circles trying to figure out if it is Michael, a photoshop job or dummy would make sense. Why not have Michael pose for the picture and then photoshop it so it does look like him but not quite what we are use to seeing. Not only that but I have said this over and over again, these photos did not need to be taken on 6/25. Who's to say that these photos weren't taken some time before which would be another reason for us to scratch our heads. As for posing naked for the photos, we have the slightest idea what is under that black square. For all we know he could have shorts on or briefs. That could be one of the reasons why the black square is so big. Also, if we look at it from a "movie" perspective then it's not really posing nude it's playing a part/acting. I am more then positive that 'make-up' was used in areas, probably for coloration etc. Also if it were me I wouldn't want to have a stand in doing it or a dummy I would want to do it myself. I also think that Michael would want control over this aspect of his creation, what better way of doing it then doing it himself.
24
« on: October 23, 2011, 12:12:53 AM »
That is a good question, I wonder why Liz Taylor isn't in the portrait?
25
« on: October 22, 2011, 11:25:50 PM »
My faith has not strayed but I am trying to wrap my head around if Murray is found guilty how all of this is going to pan out. I'm sure that a methodical plan is in action if that is to happen. We will know sooner then later.
26
« on: October 22, 2011, 10:49:01 AM »
Yes I saw that too Sarahli...it said formatting disk and the disk was loading, it was one of those blue DVD screens...I don't know if this proves that it is not live because it wouldn't really make sense...for example those outside the courthouse that are picked out as part of the lotto, to go into the courtroom, wouldn't they say something if it wasn't live?
UYI good point about the outside public sitting in the court room.
27
« on: October 21, 2011, 11:45:00 PM »
UYI I could definitely be wrong but I think the hearing for White will be different from this trial all together.
28
« on: October 21, 2011, 10:23:00 PM »
AH ha!!!!!!!!! Should I feel bad???
No reason to feel bad Ford you didn't personally do anything wrong!
Mish1981 I think Ford just said it sarcarstically.. Just to say.. blessings.
Either way, blessings to you as well.
29
« on: October 21, 2011, 10:20:54 PM »
Someone asked back on page 8 if we could compare the picture with MJ coming out of the pool. I did that and posted it last week in the TIAI thread, but I will post it here too. I altered the autopsy picture to make the size more believable, because I think they squeezed it and made the legs look shorter. Anyways, I think it's a match.
![]()
There was something about this photo that didn't look right to me and now I'm finally able to put my finger on it. If you look at the width between his shoulders and his hips they don't line up the right way. Unless, he had a major um 'Italian cut' and I only say that because I don't know how else to say it, but for men's suits if the shoulders are wider then then hips it's called an Italian cut. I truly hope that makes sense to someone who can possibly explain it better then I can. It looks as if the top half of the body and the bottom half are from two different people. Of course as many of us said in the beginning when it comes to the legs, there is no muscle tone what so ever.
30
« on: October 21, 2011, 10:05:42 PM »
AH ha!!!!!!!!! Should I feel bad???
No reason to feel bad Ford you didn't personally do anything wrong!
|
Show Posts
