0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: "everlastinglove_MJ"The image of Michael's face in the ambulance looks similar to the header of this site You are not allowed to view links. Register or Loginsorry, not been able to attach picture, due to board attachment quota maximumyou mean this one?
The image of Michael's face in the ambulance looks similar to the header of this site You are not allowed to view links. Register or Loginsorry, not been able to attach picture, due to board attachment quota maximum
Some people have thought it was a face hidden in the picture {http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17791;You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login}. However, it’s easy to see faces in random shapes such as the clouds, or mountains, etc.
Quote from: "TS_comments" .But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..This part of TS_comments' post had my mind scurrying in all kinds of directions. What does that mean? Why would it need to hold up in court?Personally, I don't have any evidence that would be admissible in court. All I have is what I have read on the internet and seen on tv. Unfortunately, the internet will let you put just anything out there whether it's true or not and the same goes for newspapers and television. I don't have access to any legal documents and verified facts surrounding this case... and apparently neither does the court. The only thing we could possibly provide is reasonable doubt and I think that is where my mind started scurrying about telling me "uh oh, what a minute." Of course, in my sleep deprived state, perhaps I am not understanding clearly.
.But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..
#3 ... is edited into the picture (Photoshop), not part of the ambulance or secondary image?
Quote from: "mdc"Quote from: "TS_comments" .But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..This part of TS_comments' post had my mind scurrying in all kinds of directions. What does that mean? Why would it need to hold up in court?Personally, I don't have any evidence that would be admissible in court. All I have is what I have read on the internet and seen on tv. Unfortunately, the internet will let you put just anything out there whether it's true or not and the same goes for newspapers and television. I don't have access to any legal documents and verified facts surrounding this case... and apparently neither does the court. The only thing we could possibly provide is reasonable doubt and I think that is where my mind started scurrying about telling me "uh oh, what a minute." Of course, in my sleep deprived state, perhaps I am not understanding clearly.MJ's got the evidence, this is his Plan. The Truth will come out in court....heck maybe MJ will come out in court? :lol: I think TS' comment about "evidence that will challenge unbelievers and hold up in court" is to get us to continue to review what has been found and see how it fits together with the big picture. We have sooooo many of the pieces, I think things will start falling into place soon...and very soon! I'm ever hopeful anyway. The trial has to be where we get close to the end, and that's around the corner now.Keep Your Head Up and Your eyes open to everything! Buckle up cuz we are heading towards the "climax" of this adventure.Touched by An Angel
This redirection..I don't see the point. We've all seen this so many times. We all get it, it's fake. What more could be to it? Probably something that just says that it's fake, but we already knew that-it's obvious. Are we just going back on everything, in one big viscous circle? That's all this seems to be, just one big viscous circle.We're all just stuck in this rabbit hole, but there's no way forward. No thrills or kicks are in this huge game anymore. I'm tired of the same old game. Although I think bec was a little too harsh with what she was saying, as I care about Michael deeply, I felt she had a point.I love Michael, I truly do. But I'm tired of what he's doing. I'm sick and tired of this ongoing game. You know, I just really want to cry right now. This is what Michael is doing to me. To all of us. And I'm sorry Michael, I really love you, but please just stop. Stop messing around with us.I know that when you come back, it'll be amazing and brilliant. But in the mean time, I don't want to be messed around with like this. None of us do..
Following Jackson's death in 2009, Dimond became a daily contributor on Entertainment Tonight for its "Michael Jackson Investigation."
Michael Jackson hearing: Paparazzi, fans hampered paramedics from getting stricken pop star to hospitalJanuary 6, 2011 | 10:58 am A paramedic who tried in vain to save Michael Jackson’s life testified Thursday that an unruly crowd of paparazzi and tourists outside the pop star’s home hampered efforts to get to the hospital recalled Los Angeles City Fire Department paramedic Richard“It’s a circus out there. It’s unbelievable,”Richard Senneff of the scene outside Jackson’s Holmby Hills mansion June 25, 2009. The witness testified on the second day of testimony at a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to try Dr. Conrad Murray for involuntary manslaughter. Senneff said that the ambulance driver had trouble navigating away from the residence because of a throng that included passengers of a tour bus and photographers with “big cameras, little cameras, video cameras, still cameras.”At one point, a man with a video camera ran alongside the ambulance holding a camera with a large lens against the window. “It just seemed wrong,” he said. Under questioning by a defense lawyer, Senneff said Murray wanted to put a “central line” to restart Jackson’s heart, but that medics did not have equipment or training to do so. He said the singer did not respond to two rounds of drugs to revive him and hospital officials told him over the radio to “call” Jackson’s death, but that neither he nor Murray wanted to do so. “I said, 'Be advised, this is a very high-profile VIP,' ” Senneff said.The 50-year-old singer was pronounced dead at UCLA Medical Center. Senneff said rescue workers had gone “above and beyond” the call of duty in the field not because Jackson was a celebrity, but “because it was someone’s son.” Katherine Jackson, the singer’s mother, listened intently in the courtroom gallery. Judge Michael Pastor also heard from a second paramedic who, like Senneff, said that Murray initially claimed he had not given his patient any medication.Martin Blount said the denial struck him as odd because he saw a hypodermic needle and three bottles of lidocaine in the room. Murray, he said, “scooped up” the bottles and placed them in a bag before they left for the hospital. “Did you ever see those bottles again,” Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren asked. “No, sir,” Blount replied. Murray, 57, has pleaded not guilty.Prosecutors accuse Murray of an “extreme deviation” from the standard of medical care by, among other things, giving Jackson the surgical anesthetic propofol to treat insomnia.
Quote from: "TouchedByAnAngel"Quote from: "mdc"Quote from: "TS_comments" .But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..This part of TS_comments' post had my mind scurrying in all kinds of directions. What does that mean? Why would it need to hold up in court?Personally, I don't have any evidence that would be admissible in court. All I have is what I have read on the internet and seen on tv. Unfortunately, the internet will let you put just anything out there whether it's true or not and the same goes for newspapers and television. I don't have access to any legal documents and verified facts surrounding this case... and apparently neither does the court. The only thing we could possibly provide is reasonable doubt and I think that is where my mind started scurrying about telling me "uh oh, what a minute." Of course, in my sleep deprived state, perhaps I am not understanding clearly.MJ's got the evidence, this is his Plan. The Truth will come out in court....heck maybe MJ will come out in court? :lol: I think TS' comment about "evidence that will challenge unbelievers and hold up in court" is to get us to continue to review what has been found and see how it fits together with the big picture. We have sooooo many of the pieces, I think things will start falling into place soon...and very soon! I'm ever hopeful anyway. The trial has to be where we get close to the end, and that's around the corner now.Keep Your Head Up and Your eyes open to everything! Buckle up cuz we are heading towards the "climax" of this adventure.Touched by An AngelBut see, if I could prove THAT in a court of law we wouldn't even be having this discussion. lol
Quote from: "mdc"Quote from: "TS_comments" .But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..This part of TS_comments' post had my mind scurrying in all kinds of directions. What does that mean? Why would it need to hold up in court?Maybe Mike hasn't written the script for the trial yet and needs some help :lol:
Quote from: "TS_comments" .But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law..This part of TS_comments' post had my mind scurrying in all kinds of directions. What does that mean? Why would it need to hold up in court?
Quote from: "TS_comments"I’m going to make one more introductory comment here, before taking a deep dive into the evidences regarding the ambulance photo, and the hows of the hoax. In this process, I don’t want anyone to accept or reject what I present merely because of who presents it; as I have always said, go by the evidence itself—regardless of who presents it. And in fact, others should bring in evidence they have found (and indeed, many are doing this already in this thread, which is good); don’t just wait for me to explain everything.To put it another way: I may challenge true theories, and/or I may lend support to false theories. In fact, I will usually have at least two different theories for each step. And as we follow the theories: we may find one hitting a dead end, while another flows nicely with no serious difficulties.Most importantly, I want to inspire critical analysis; even more important than the subject itself, is how you approach it. Unfortunately, many hoax investigators have gone down the road of supporting the hoax with very flimsy evidence at best, and often just plain incorrect evidence. This type of approach does not help anyone; it only makes unbelievers ridicule us as crazy (well, maybe we are :lol: ). But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law.Critical investigation means to approach the subject as if you were trying to DISPROVE the hoax—not trying to come up with anything and everything imaginable to support the hoax (or supposedly support it). And if you TRY to disprove something, but can’t find any reasonable way around it, then you PROBABLY have some good solid evidence. Also, if you have at least two or more strong evidences pointing to the same conclusion, then that is most likely the truth. But it’s not a good idea to base any conclusion on only one piece of evidence, even if it seems to be a fairly strong point.When the trial starts, I will not be doing very many redirects or comments. There will be plenty for you to investigate—especially since it will be televised; and I don’t want to take your time and attention from that. However, we have about a month left; let’s see how far we can get connecting the dots on the hows of the hoax (coming up with a good, solid, coherent theory).When you said we only have month left does that mean the trial will be over in a month or he will return in a month??
I’m going to make one more introductory comment here, before taking a deep dive into the evidences regarding the ambulance photo, and the hows of the hoax. In this process, I don’t want anyone to accept or reject what I present merely because of who presents it; as I have always said, go by the evidence itself—regardless of who presents it. And in fact, others should bring in evidence they have found (and indeed, many are doing this already in this thread, which is good); don’t just wait for me to explain everything.To put it another way: I may challenge true theories, and/or I may lend support to false theories. In fact, I will usually have at least two different theories for each step. And as we follow the theories: we may find one hitting a dead end, while another flows nicely with no serious difficulties.Most importantly, I want to inspire critical analysis; even more important than the subject itself, is how you approach it. Unfortunately, many hoax investigators have gone down the road of supporting the hoax with very flimsy evidence at best, and often just plain incorrect evidence. This type of approach does not help anyone; it only makes unbelievers ridicule us as crazy (well, maybe we are :lol: ). But seriously, we want to go by solid evidence that will challenge unbelievers, and perhaps even hold up in a court of law.Critical investigation means to approach the subject as if you were trying to DISPROVE the hoax—not trying to come up with anything and everything imaginable to support the hoax (or supposedly support it). And if you TRY to disprove something, but can’t find any reasonable way around it, then you PROBABLY have some good solid evidence. Also, if you have at least two or more strong evidences pointing to the same conclusion, then that is most likely the truth. But it’s not a good idea to base any conclusion on only one piece of evidence, even if it seems to be a fairly strong point.When the trial starts, I will not be doing very many redirects or comments. There will be plenty for you to investigate—especially since it will be televised; and I don’t want to take your time and attention from that. However, we have about a month left; let’s see how far we can get connecting the dots on the hows of the hoax (coming up with a good, solid, coherent theory).
