0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginIm_convinced: how did you take this personally?QuoteIt's too fantastical of a theory and in order to make sense of it, you have to assume too many components<---that's the sign of a theory that's starting to unravel.And then after you took it personally, why did you take it as an open door invitation to empty both barrels into me?Damn woman. Chill out. It's all good in the hood.bec-Why would I think the statement you made wasn't directed at me when you clearly were responding to my comment. You clearly said that the theory I was talking about is fantastical and that shows a sign of a theory unraveling. Who else would you have been talking to or about if not for me? Yes IMO that was a personal attack. Like I said you do that alot. As a matter of fact it seemed very left field for me to respond like that huh? Ya know why because just like I said I do not comment like that when in a debate. I always keep personal attacks out of it and when I just showed you exactly how dirty I can get (which was mild in comparison to what I can do) you felt as though I was wrong, had a shit day and was coming from left field. I did not have a shit day and that wasn't from left field in my book it was something I just never had put out there in public before. I can play nice and I intend to. I wonder why is it that you and Souza always answer me with more questions instead of saying what I asked for you to explain? I answered your comment with my reasonings and not just a bunch of questions backing you into a corner.Souza-In defense of bec really wasn't needed because I already know this. Does it make it ok for her to attack because she is always like that? How do you even know I am not like how I just showed in my last comment all the time in my regular life? If I am than it should make it ok for me to be like that now because that is how I always am. I do know how to behave and write respectfully and I will. You came with more questions instead of just explaining to me why you don't think the target could be the judge or the DA's office. I and others have shown proof that the judge and DA's office is very corrupt. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login@Im_convinced, saying how I operate and that I resort to personal attacks and you have my tactics all figured out... you know, pardon me, but what the fuck? Out of left field much?I'm going to go ahead and just assume you had a seriously shit-tastic day.Hmmm-Did that seem out of left field? Maybe because I have never resorted to those tactics before like I said. lolol/ Because I'm talking about the THEORY, Im_convinced, not about YOU. Why you are equating your personal SELF with the THEORY I do not understand.Draw a line of separation, Im_convinced. YOU do not equate the Sting THEORY.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginIm_convinced: how did you take this personally?QuoteIt's too fantastical of a theory and in order to make sense of it, you have to assume too many components<---that's the sign of a theory that's starting to unravel.And then after you took it personally, why did you take it as an open door invitation to empty both barrels into me?Damn woman. Chill out. It's all good in the hood.bec-Why would I think the statement you made wasn't directed at me when you clearly were responding to my comment. You clearly said that the theory I was talking about is fantastical and that shows a sign of a theory unraveling. Who else would you have been talking to or about if not for me? Yes IMO that was a personal attack. Like I said you do that alot. As a matter of fact it seemed very left field for me to respond like that huh? Ya know why because just like I said I do not comment like that when in a debate. I always keep personal attacks out of it and when I just showed you exactly how dirty I can get (which was mild in comparison to what I can do) you felt as though I was wrong, had a shit day and was coming from left field. I did not have a shit day and that wasn't from left field in my book it was something I just never had put out there in public before. I can play nice and I intend to. I wonder why is it that you and Souza always answer me with more questions instead of saying what I asked for you to explain? I answered your comment with my reasonings and not just a bunch of questions backing you into a corner.Souza-In defense of bec really wasn't needed because I already know this. Does it make it ok for her to attack because she is always like that? How do you even know I am not like how I just showed in my last comment all the time in my regular life? If I am than it should make it ok for me to be like that now because that is how I always am. I do know how to behave and write respectfully and I will. You came with more questions instead of just explaining to me why you don't think the target could be the judge or the DA's office. I and others have shown proof that the judge and DA's office is very corrupt. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login@Im_convinced, saying how I operate and that I resort to personal attacks and you have my tactics all figured out... you know, pardon me, but what the fuck? Out of left field much?I'm going to go ahead and just assume you had a seriously shit-tastic day.Hmmm-Did that seem out of left field? Maybe because I have never resorted to those tactics before like I said. lolol/
Im_convinced: how did you take this personally?QuoteIt's too fantastical of a theory and in order to make sense of it, you have to assume too many components<---that's the sign of a theory that's starting to unravel.And then after you took it personally, why did you take it as an open door invitation to empty both barrels into me?Damn woman. Chill out. It's all good in the hood.
It's too fantastical of a theory and in order to make sense of it, you have to assume too many components<---that's the sign of a theory that's starting to unravel.
@Im_convinced, saying how I operate and that I resort to personal attacks and you have my tactics all figured out... you know, pardon me, but what the fuck? Out of left field much?I'm going to go ahead and just assume you had a seriously shit-tastic day.
@Im_convinced, in addition to my last post I have to say that I am finding it increasingly difficult to debate this subject with you. You seem to be taking my challenges to the Sting Court theory as challenges aimed at yourself. You seem to be personifying the theory which makes it difficult to have a debate on the subject without your feelings being hurt in the process. The Hoax Court theory stands at this juncture, so I feel confident that I can walk away from direct debates as we were invited to perform without feeling that I haven't given it my due diligence. I will, however, continue to participate in the thread as we go forward with the information and as events progress.
As a matter of fact it seemed very left field for me to respond like that huh? Ya know why because just like I said I do not comment like that when in a debate. I always keep personal attacks out of it and when I just showed you exactly how dirty I can get (which was mild in comparison to what I can do) you felt as though I was wrong, had a shit day and was coming from left field.
If there is no real body, almost all the witnesses must be in the hoax, and this is hard to believe.But if it has to be a real body that could fool the ones who saw it, who's body could it be? It must look like MJ, at least a little. And THIS is again hard to believe.Nothing makes sense to me about the body....well except that the body was Michael's.
May I just say I wish TS would come and start a new thread - I'm sick of wading through Bec and Im_convinced's squabbling. Please let it go guys - you're both doing a great job with your hoax v sting theories, but your public arguing is tiresome and downgrades your excellent ideas. Please do it in private where it won't get in the way of other members reading your relevant on-topic thoughts.
I know it's a hoax and the trial is a movie. Conrad is an actor but do you think he could be a double agent. That means he could be secretly doing things for the illuminati or freemasons and not think that anyone would find out. But maybe they did and are setting him up ?? Maybe he is completely innocent ?? I guess we will find out soon. Maybe the whole trial is just a movie to teach us about the media. Maybe some people will be set up such as the drug companies ?
because there is not only a mess, but THERE IS A FIRE BURNING.End of June, right, we need a fire in L.A.? It's freezingly cold when everybody has left the house except those cleaning staff forgetting about the water taps (or fire hoses), right?So it's safe to say that there is no fire needed when everybody has moved out from a "crime scene" house and it's also safe to say that at the moment the picture was taken after everybody had moved out of a "crime scene" house, the fire did neither have to warm up the room nor a freezing patient nor a coroner's or LAPD photographer or paparazzi. Right?
I do not believe that MJ would seek out to help the FBI perform a sting operation against some random corrupt public entity in the county most convenient to reside in while rehearsing for his (hoax) concerts. Nor do I believe the FBI would agree to adhere to specific dates/times/pages of documents to remain in perfect accordance with numerology as directed by MJ, who in this scenario, is a simple small-potatoes player/consultant, in a much larger corruption sting operation. Nor do I believe the FBI would go to the lengths of a fake trial to catch a criminal. Nor do I believe the FBI has a vested interest in toppling the Illuminati.I do believe MJ would (and could) spoof a trial and call it a movie. Movies are filmed in real courtrooms all the time. The only difference being that everyone generally knows when a movie is being filmed and it isn't real. This time, this small detail was omitted from public knowledge. I don't believe there is a full disclosure law in movie making. So long as you have clearance and the proper permits from local law enforcement (hence the FBI involvement, considering the hoax is not confined to a local jurisdiction it falls under federal and even more, considering the connections to things outside of the country, FBI is the agency to handle this) for any sets or scenes that simulate or reenact depictions of criminal behavior, all is perfectly in compliance with the law. I believe when TS was talking about entrapment he meant fans and the media complaining after Bamsday, that MJ tricked and deceived them into believing he was dead. The proof that MJ did not trick and deceive anyone who cared to know the truth, is US. WE, just by being hoaxers, and uncovering the true story of what really happened (hoax), have proved, already, that MJ didn't trap anyone into believing he was dead. The truth was right in front of everyone's faces all along, they just chose not to see... what we see plainly. We prevent the ignorant from using entrapment as their defense.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginIf there is no real body, almost all the witnesses must be in the hoax, and this is hard to believe.But if it has to be a real body that could fool the ones who saw it, who's body could it be? It must look like MJ, at least a little. And THIS is again hard to believe.Nothing makes sense to me about the body....well except that the body was Michael's.No it's not. Those who allegedly saw the body were his security guards and personal assistent, EMT's/doctors/coroner (officials) and family. That's it. FBI is involved so officials involved is not unbelievable. The guards and PA most likely signed a confidentiality agreement and family is family. So why a real body?
