0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why is this subject so important?Isn't the " reason " more important?OR is it that the photo is NOT fake?
Quote from: "Le Papillon Bleu"Why is this subject so important?Isn't the " reason " more important?OR is it that the photo is NOT fake?I think that after 20 months we all know the reasons and are very aware of it. I have been looking at parts of the picture I haven't noticed before and I think TS' point is that he wants us to take a closer look at details like that, to build actual proof that Mike is not dead, or at least that stuff like this is fake. This way it is easier to explain and show to non-believers. Now there are hundreds of theories on the board and we all have our own 'proofs' that stuff is fake, this could get us all on the same page. Facts instead of theories. Piece by piece.
I've been reading but haven't joined in this thread before as it very quickly became way too technical for me to follow! I haven't a clue what's possible with computer wizardry in the field of photo alterations etc, other than it appears anything is possible. I'm from the simpler era when 'the camera didn't lie'!Looking at the wider aspect, with TS implying we should be building actual proof that MJ is NOT dead, it makes me wonder if maybe the lawyers in Murray's trial could do with doing similar: prosecution - prove he's actually DEAD before accusing Murray of anything, defence - prove he's NOT!
Quote from: "Elsa"I'm sure I saw a video of the ambulance backing out that showed the red car wasn't in the right position to be reflected in Ben's photo. OK, so back to the ambulance. :mrgreen: You are right - compared to the movies we were presented, we may doubt where and how the photos were composed.We should consider a little bit more material.Remember the EXIF data of one of the pictures showed 12:08 as creation hour.That's 18 minutes before the ambulance allegedly arrived.This is the video of the "proof picture" which is only proving the fact that several takes were executed but not the fact that Christopher Weiss shot that sequence of photos: he's in bright sunlight without any tree shadows as seen on the famous pictures:[youtube:3sixzsrm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VR-HSc2aM4[/youtube:3sixzsrm]Evenstad is not saying the truth stating in the video he could see Michael's face through the window. He was not there in front of the side window - at least not in the material we saw. He was not even the one shooting the "proof" photo, since he was not down the street. He was also not at the window in the "proof" photo and also not in the Hollywood TV video. Ben was sitting in his car, the red Toyota Prius, while the ambulance backed out. You see this for a second (1:36) in the Hollywood TV video when the video filmer is running back to his car.The "proof" photo is showing the yellow shirt guy taking the photo in the middle of the road (and not the red shirt guy from the video who stood in front of the yellow shirt guy there). The angle of the camera of the yellow shirt guy is even wrong. Impossible to shoot the picture like this. Only the red shirt guy could have shot it, but in the Hollywood TV movie, he's running away too fast and DOESN'T EVEN LOOK into the window but turns his head to the left. This is the exact way how to NOT shoot a good sequence of pics. It's getting better: in an interview, Weiss stated this:QuoteYeah, and did you notice his so called offhand comment…“We couldn't see inside the ambulance,” Weiss continues “For all I knew when I was taking the pictures, Michael could have been sitting up on a gurney with oxygen on It's like he knew what was going on inside it…..(credit to Morgana on MJHD.com, July 27, 2009)In another video about the ambulance picture, Ben is telling more fairy tales.Watch the seconds as of 1:14 - the video keeps hanging in on that blurry something and is showing the red car again (and the wall behind it - see the leaves even would have had to move 7 feet forwards to come close to the car front and become part of a mirroring thingie - photoshop... :mrgreen:)[youtube:3sixzsrm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvr08oqpK44[/youtube:3sixzsrm]Why would a cristal clear video have to be hanging in on a blurry somethingie for seconds?Now thanks to international interest, someone saved the TMZ video version for us:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginThe tourist bus is parking in parallel to the fire truck, not close to the pylones as in the Hollywood TV movie. Please watch for the shadows, they are much longer now than in the Hollywood TV movie, watch the crack in the middle of the road and compare both films.In the Hollywood TV movie, there's no shadow at all in sight in the middle of the road, the garbage bins and the folks at the back door are in sunshine. In the TMZ movie, the ambulance backs out into the shadow of the trees at the right side of the street.Coming back to the role of the red car in the "reflection" of the tinted side window.The red Toyota Prius (Ben Evenstad's car that he reportedly had lent for joyrides to Michael) was parked right in front of the gate when the ambulance backed out, when the water ran through the house some days later (see thread on TIAI Feb 14 redirect) and when the mourning fans gathered (see video TS_comments cited - at the last two occasions: parked at Monovale). Seems that its owner still was around that address all the time - despite the fact that the owner allegedly had passed away and was - to be honest - not a hot selling target anymore.I mean, NPG had shot "THE" photo and Ben still was not satisfied? (Or suspicious or what?)It still gets weirder:This is a tweet from e-online on June 26, 2009:Michael Jackson Death-Site Scene: Weird You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 5:46 PM Jun 26th, 2009 via twitterfeed You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginThe link takes you to this site giving an impression of the situation on the street on June 26, 2009:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginInteresting article btw.What do we see on that photo?The lined-up garbage bins - and a red Toyota Prius parked in a cop protected area. Huh?What was it looking like on June 25, 2009 in the afternoon according to life.com:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginNo red Toyota Prius that day. Hidden behind the truck?I think the car and its driver are much more interesting than the ambulance photo as such.How come a red Toyota Prius was present in a closed area with cops presence the day after the alleged passing of Michael Jackson?Btw, behind the Prius a dark SUV was parked (the type Michael used) and the license plate is also visible in the Hollywood TV movie.Was the master watching and directing the takes from the outside?Just asking.
I'm sure I saw a video of the ambulance backing out that showed the red car wasn't in the right position to be reflected in Ben's photo.
Yeah, and did you notice his so called offhand comment…“We couldn't see inside the ambulance,” Weiss continues “For all I knew when I was taking the pictures, Michael could have been sitting up on a gurney with oxygen on It's like he knew what was going on inside it…..
TS_comments wrote: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. 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.