Blog

[bec]

As has happened many times in the past, I think sometimes we misinterpret what is being said...not just what TS says but also each other.

TS:

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.

Notice what TS is comparing here....which is indicated AFTER the 'than', as with any instance of comparing two things.  He did NOT say "no greater risk than using a real body/corpse/DWD patient".  I interpret his statement as meaning IF they had to switch to Plan C....a dummy would have been no greater risk than what WE had already outlined as the risks in using one.  Not sure if that makes sense.

Oh yes, I agree, the devil is in the details and the details are in the second part of that sentence, as you rightfully pointed out, the portion of the sentence after the "than". I said something about that part earlier and I'll just quote myself:

If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?

TS_comments said this in conjunction with "proving" the DWD theory, as in; here are the 3 layers of protection for using a DWD patient ("use", ugh). 3 layers of protection: layer one, first DWD patient-->he drops out last minute, bring in layer two, 2nd DWD patient-->he drops out last minute as well, bring in layer 3, a dummy?? Huh?

If TS_comments does not agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy option carries "no greater risk" then why did he include it in his own layers of protection in an attempt to prove his theory?

I wouldn't use "proof" I didn't agree with/didn't make sense to me when trying to validate a theory. At least not if I wanted it to be seriously considered. That would be sloppy investigative work and to say the least, TS_comments never struck me as sloppy.

Using logic, TS_comments does agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy carries "no greater risk" then a DWD patient, else he would not have used it to support his theory. Further use of logic causes me to continue to question this "Truth" that a DWD patient was involved in MJ's hoax, I'll explain. If a dummy could replace a DWD patient then this means that a real person's body was not necessary for success of the project. And if it wasn't necessary... why would they go through the trouble of involving this alleged additional person? Why would they go through the trouble of ensuring this person died with a timing that supported the numerology when using a dummy was a viable option?

I think we are being constantly redirected purposefully and I think this is part of, if not the point of, the game.

[katy (MJFAN7)]

I don't see the problem with a DWD patient. The patient was dying, and was going to die soon. If the patient was going to agree to participate in the DWD program, then maybe they wanted to help Michael out. Michael explained to them the reason for hoaxing his death and the person agreed to it. Michael/FBI would NOT have forced the DWD patient to do this, obviously. They could've easily said no.

[jono]

As has happened many times in the past, I think sometimes we misinterpret what is being said...not just what TS says but also each other.

TS:

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.

Notice what TS is comparing here....which is indicated AFTER the 'than', as with any instance of comparing two things.  He did NOT say "no greater risk than using a real body/corpse/DWD patient".  I interpret his statement as meaning IF they had to switch to Plan C....a dummy would have been no greater risk than what WE had already outlined as the risks in using one.  Not sure if that makes sense.

Oh yes, I agree, the devil is in the details and the details are in the second part of that sentence, as you rightfully pointed out, the portion of the sentence after the "than". I said something about that part earlier and I'll just quote myself:

If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?

TS_comments said this in conjunction with "proving" the DWD theory, as in; here are the 3 layers of protection for using a DWD patient ("use", ugh). 3 layers of protection: layer one, first DWD patient-->he drops out last minute, bring in layer two, 2nd DWD patient-->he drops out last minute as well, bring in layer 3, a dummy?? Huh?

If TS_comments does not agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy option carries "no greater risk" then why did he include it in his own layers of protection in an attempt to prove his theory?

I wouldn't use "proof" I didn't agree with/didn't make sense to me when trying to validate a theory. At least not if I wanted it to be seriously considered. That would be sloppy investigative work and to say the least, TS_comments never struck me as sloppy.

Using logic, TS_comments does agree with "many on this thread" that the dummy carries "no greater risk" then a DWD patient, else he would not have used it to support his theory. Further use of logic causes me to continue to question this "Truth" that a DWD patient was involved in MJ's hoax, I'll explain. If a dummy could replace a DWD patient then this means that a real person's body was not necessary for success of the project. And if it wasn't necessary... why would they go through the trouble of involving this alleged additional person? Why would they go through the trouble of ensuring this person died with a timing that supported the numerology when using a dummy was a viable option?

I think we are being constantly redirected purposefully and I think this is part of, if not the point of, the game.

:th_bravo:

[hesouttamylife]

Michael generously supported any number of organizations and/or became a benefactor to many causes that could have put him in close proximity of people suffering horrendously and possibly wanting to end their lives.  If only for that reason, I have to at least consider the DWD option a viable one.  Families with loved ones dealing with catastrophic challenges many times feel caught between a rock and a hard place and see no way out.  They might have insurance policies that are antiquated and will not pay out if a death is by any other means other than accidental or by natural causes in its natural progression without hampering, or maybe they have exhausted all of their assets and are now financially and emotionally bankrupt & dependent on that pay out to continue to survive after the death.  So what can they do?  Nothing but sit and wait and watch and know their hands are tied.   They are forced to watch their loved ones suffer and waste away in pain and agony. Been there done that and I know that if I had been given an option, a benefactor, an angel in the wake of that crisis, I know with 100% certainty that I would have taken it and thanked God for having sent him to me.

I am not saying with any conviction that Michael helped any family make that decision, but that I can see it being a good enough reason for a person in that state of emotional/financial crisis to accept real kindness in retrospect.  There are no losers.  There is no sacrifice.  The family gets to see their loved one end their needless suffering and the rest is history. Never speak of it again.  Just count the blessings.  I am in no way trying to persuade anyone else to see this as possible;  but asserting that nothing can convince me that the DWD option is unrealistic. Though it is not the only option by any means, it is still a very viable one IMO.

http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/michael-jackson#related-news

Michael Jackson Charity Work, Events and Causes

Michael Jackson wrote "We Are The World" with Lionel Richie in 1985 and performed it as part of an all-star single to raise money for Africa in 1985.

The Millennium-Issue of the "Guinness Book Of Records" names Michael as the "Pop Star who supports the most charity organizations", according to JacksonAction.com, which has an extensive timeline of Jackson's charity work.

In 1984, Jackson equiped a 19-bed-unit at Mount Senai New York Medical Center. This center is part of the T.J. Martell-Foundation for leukemia and cancer research. Later in the year, he visited the Brotman Memorial Hospital, where he had been treated when he was burned very badly during the producing of a Pepsi commercial. He donated all the money he received from Pepsi, $1.5 million, to the Michael Jackson Burn Center for Children.

In 1986, he set up the "Michael Jackson United Negro College Fund Endowed Scholarship Fund". This $1.5 million fund is aimed towards students majoring in performance art and communications, with money given each year to students attending a UNCF member college or university.

He donated the proceeds from the sales of The Man In The Mirror to Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times, a camp for children who suffer from cancer.

Jackson donated tickets to shows in is 1989 Bad Tour to underprivileged children. The proceeds from one of his shows in Los Angeles were donated to Childhelp USA, the biggest charity-organization against child-abuse. Childhelp of Southern California then established the "Michael Jackson International Institute for Research On Child Abuse".

In 1992, he established the Heal The World Foundation, whose work has included airlifting 6 tons of supplies to Sarajevo, instituting drug and alcohol abuse education and donating millions of dollars to less fortunate children.

Copyright © 2012 Look to the Stars, All rights reserved.

Please also see our 40 past articles about Michael Jackson
Charities & foundations supported (18)

Michael Jackson has supported the following charities:

AIDS Project Los Angeles
American Cancer Society
Big Brothers Big Sisters
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Childhelp USA
Children's Defense Fund
Cure4Lupus
Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation
End Hunger Network
Great Ormond Street Hospital
Jane Goodall Institute
JDRF
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Prince's Trust
Ronald McDonald House Charities
Starlight Children's Foundation
TJ Martell Foundation
United Negro College Fund

[bec]

Agreed 100%, hesoutamylife.

I don't question the DWD theory because of ethics or morality, several others have echoed the same sentiment repeatedly. I don't know how many different ways those of us who are questioning this can say that. There's seems to be a fixation on questioners having an issue with the morality of DWD and it is distracting from the real debate (/conversation/discussion).

The morality is not in question. The logistics of the theory are.

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

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.

If a dummy could be used with no greater risk, why not use one? I don't understand. If TS_comments doesn't agree with "many on this thread", then why did he use this 3rd option as support for the DWD patient? So then he does agree with "many on this thread" that using a dummy carries no greater risk then using a DWD patient; if the DWD patients back out they'll just use a dummy, no problem?

Could anyone who believes TS_comments and supports the DWD patient theory explain this supportive evidence that he presented? Can anyone make sense of this? If a dummy is a viable ' emergency plan C', then why is it necessary to use a real person who just died at all?

Also, why did this person need an alleged date of death if they really did die on 6/25/09?

Also, lastly but not at all leastly...

can anyone hypothesize why Front posted this gif while anticipating TS_comments about to reveal the "Truth" once-and-for-all proving that a DWD patient gave his life for MJ's hoax?

Enjoying the show, smiling and eating popcorn..? News about a DWD patient dying isn't entertainment. I do not agree that all the dots connect.

Bec I think you have misunderstood Front's gif because he posted it before TS started to explain us why DWD patient could fit in the hoax, Front posted his gif just after Adi asked: "Still no TS?
Maybe he is waiting for the right time to post...like 11:29 ?" Check it on page 127, and after some of us were asking about Mr. Joe Jackson's stroke (on the other thread) where somebody wrote something like: please Michael give us a sign that your father's stroke is not true and he is doing well, so that's why I understood that Front's gif with himself eating popcorn and smiling was due to he was enjoying while reading our posts where we were expecting TS' replies so badly, so this way he was confirming us that Mr. Joe Jackson was doing well and haven't had any stroke, IMHO (forgive me Michael if I am wrong and it has been true your father's stroke).

[bec]

Hmm, sunset. It's possible. But if that were the case, I wonder why he didn't post it on the thread(s) devoted to the news reports of Joe's stroke? There were many people on those threads wondering if it were true and hoping these were false reports and wishing Mr. Jackson the best just in case. Yet he came to the TIAI thread where we are predominantly tossing around the DWD theory and waiting for TS, who supports the DWD theory, to post the completion of Level 7, to give us a sign that reports of Joe's stroke was BS? Most of us think TS/TS_comments?Front all work for the same team, Front must have known what TS_comments was about to post... so I don't know.

[BeTheChange]

@bec...I DO see what you're saying as far as your interpretation of what TS could've meant....but I still interpret it differently (and of course, I may be wrong).  ANY plan...any good plan anyway, will have several backup options due to unexpected stuff happening causing the 'initial' plan to backfire.  TS highlighted that there were 2 DWD patients with 'unknown' death locations listed from WA...and suggested (although couldn't/didn't concretely prove) that 1 of those patients was Plan A, the other Plan B (if something else caused Plan A to not work), and then Plan C would've been the dummy.  Meaning, IF ALL else fails (i.e. the 'initial' plan or even backup plan), then they would have to resort to the dummy....which was NOT 'ideal' (for all the reasons already given by TS and others).  There were some VERY strong points against the use of a dummy (you, yourself, chose to list points for Live MJ theory over the dummy)....there IS evidence suggesting that a dummy was NOT used and there are 'logical' reasons as to why a dummy would not have been ideal to use.

I just think that IF the FBI is involved (and many signs point to that)....there would've been NO way that they'd advise Mike to do ANYTHING that day that could compromise the mission....a mission MANY years in the making.  Thinking along those lines...there are SO many things that could've gone wrong with using a dummy or having Mike play the part himself.  Of course, using a DWD patient/corpse carries risk too...as would ANY option used that day.  But when everything is factored in....a corpse DOES pose the least amount of risk and it DOES involve having the least amount of people in on it.  The greatest risk, IMO, would be that someone recognizes that 'it' doesn't look like Mike.  Well, that DID happen (whether or not the convo between Blount and the stalker fan actually happened doesn't even matter...what matters is that it was widely reported that Blount DID say that and no one even blinked).

I know some just don't see the 'logic' of it all....and that's fine, we're not all going to agree.  We can keep discussing it til the cows come home and we won't be able to figure it all out until after BAM...and maybe not even fully then.  Maybe the whole thing has been one huge mindf*ck and the FBI isn't even involved lol....but that would contradict a whole lot of what happened....a slew of 'dots' along the way point to FBI involvement.  And if the FBI IS involved, then I can definitely see the 'logic' in them choosing a corpse over a dummy and/or Live MJ (again, based on all the reasons already discussed by many).

Again, I have NO clue what happened 'that day'...just trying to make sense of things like everyone else.  But the fact remains that IF a dummy OR Live MJ was actually used, the 'script' DID call for a hospice patient theory to be in the mix (for some strange reason) WAY before TS even showed up on the scene (refer back to BOTH EMT's testimonies of 'that day').  I can't figure out a 'logical' reason WHY the script would call for EMT's who were in the know (and they would have to be if EITHER a dummy or Live MJ was used)...to make it seem like ANYTHING other than Mike was dying or dead 'that day', when the whole point of June 25th was to make the world believe that Mike had, in fact, died.

With L.O.V.E. always.

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

I don't see the problem with a DWD patient. The patient was dying, and was going to die soon. If the patient was going to agree to participate in the DWD program, then maybe they wanted to help Michael out. Michael explained to them the reason for hoaxing his death and the person agreed to it. Michael/FBI would NOT have forced the DWD patient to do this, obviously. They could've easily said no.

Furthermore as per TS Michael only could chose date and time the rest was ONLY FBI's issues, so please AGAIN don't blame Michael in case a DWD patient was used in this hoax, DWD patient was gonna die anyway and what they did was lengthened his life some more days.

[hesouttamylife]

Could anyone who believes TS_comments and supports the DWD patient theory explain this supportive evidence that he presented? Can anyone make sense of this? If a dummy is a viable ' emergency plan C', then why is it necessary to use a real person who just died at all?

Also, why did this person need an alleged date of death if they really did die on 6/25/09?

Remembering back to reports that were made on and following 6/25/09, I remember it being said that the temperature in the bedroom was extremely high.  This of course would only confirm to most that Michael was "sick" as had been alleged by many of his fans around him during those last days; saying that he was dressed at rehearsals in layers and layers of clothes, always cold, etc.  (to me, he seemed to be wearing some kind of protective shield rather than lots of clothing)  Anyway, time of death on scene is usually determined by how quickly the body cools down.  If the room is excessively hot, the body temperature would not drop normally.  That being the case, the body could have been kept preserved until just the right time for the hoax to begin. Recalling that the paramedics actually asserted that they did not get a pulse, etc. but kept up appearances for Katherine's sake and did not call the death until she reached UCLA, it would be an alleged date as well as an alleged time of death. No one really knows because there were too many incidentals involving time parameters.  On the other hand, if people are willing to accept and believe that a fresh Michael Jackson was buried almost 3 months after death then anything is possible.  :smiley-vault-misc-150:

I am still waiting for someone to confirm if there were 2 ambulances seen at different times at the residence on 6/25.  If that was the case, possibly one was to bring the body to Carolwood and the other to remove it.  So alleged date could mean that this body deceased prior to 12:00 a.m. on 6/25/09 but could not be verified positively because the room was so hot.  Has anyone ever thought that maybe a body and a dummy were used interchangeably;  the body for the purpose of the paramedics, hospital, etc. and a dummy for photos and as needed?  I ask because of the physical discrepancies given by people who testified.

[MJonmind]

Thriller4ever, I responded to you here, but maybe you saw it and it wasn't what you were looking for:
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,21319.msg430596.html#msg430596

Bec, well now that you connect Front's gif posted RIGHT before TS's response and proofs (I don't believe connected to Joe's health), that does add a distinct measure of 'playing with us' before 'snapping his fingers' and then bam.  I'll admit my initial response to TS adding the disclaimer at the bottom of 'playing devil's advocate' was the same thing as putting in 'alleged' twice in the courtroom. And the purpose of that 'alleged' was to nullify the previous judgement of CM being 'Guilty' of manslaughter.  Not far away from my mind is the alternative pronunciation of 'man's laughter'.  I really don't know what to do with all this except to 'Keep watching'.  It ain't over till it's over. We're not going to wring a clearer answer from TS until he's ready to do so.  Afterall, maybe he doesn't want anyone to leave here upset that it was a DWD patient or because the riddle is solved/investigation over, yet he wants to keep the edge/controversy going to keep things red hot.  Red hot has generally been MJ's modus operandi.   The basis of many a thriller movie is that the audience is led to think one way throughout and wham they're hit with a totally different reason/'reality' that was going on.  Which reminds me that if this is Thriller 2 here and MJ's eating popcorn in the theatre showing Thriller and MJ-werewolf,  then it's a show within a show, within a show and the ending leaves you happy but uncertain.

I lean towards DWD being what happened, but the 3rd dummy option keeps any 'others' reading here besides us, some measure of safe uncertainty.  Perhaps that's how MJ's kept his enemies at bay all these years, especially as he worked closely and directly with even those who could be secretly out to destroy him if they see a crack of opportunity somewhere.  He is a master chess player, even with us.  But you're not mad at him for doing this, are you, Bec?

Or if I was a bystander watching a game of logic between two debaters, from my vantage it seems that the logic for the DWD seems a little more supported than for the dummy. My biggest personal reason for wishing he had not used a DWD is because of the, you said the word 'using' him and his death, and 'using' sounds selfish and MJ needs to clear negative monster images out of the public's mind.  But then that's emotions, and emotions should not be the determining factor. We humans have been conditioned by all kinds of cultural and religious influences for thousands of years.

[Sarahli]

Concerning this sentence from TS:

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.

He still said that he considers the DWD patient to be a much lower risk than 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.

Therefore my understanding is that TS doesn't work for the FBI lol and that he doesn't know how the FBI planned all of this in detail. He is bringing forward a theory like us. If the 2 patients backed out and there wasn't enough time left to have a 3rd one and the Hoax having to start they must have had an emergency plan C because it couldn't happen another day,  it absolutely had to be that day. So in the last resort they would use a dummy and adapt a proper protocol. Which could have maybe not included the UCLA ride for example. This is just a big ASSumption here but it's just to give an idea of how the scenario would change if a dummy had been used instead of a DWD patient.

I think that "alleged victim" and "alleged date" cover both the DWD patient and the fact that it wasn't MJ as everybody was thinking. Therefore the date too had to be alleged.

[bec]

He is a master chess player, even with us.  But you're not mad at him for doing this, are you, Bec?

No, it's part of the game I signed up for.

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

Hmm, sunset. It's possible. But if that were the case, I wonder why he didn't post it on the thread(s) devoted to the news reports of Joe's stroke? There were many people on those threads wondering if it were true and hoping these were false reports and wishing Mr. Jackson the best just in case. Yet he came to the TIAI thread where we are predominantly tossing around the DWD theory and waiting for TS, who supports the DWD theory, to post the completion of Level 7, to give us a sign that reports of Joe's stroke was BS? Most of us think TS/TS_comments?Front all work for the same team, Front must have known what TS_comments was about to post... so I don't know.

He posted on the TS thread because we were talking about Mr. Jackson's stroke on TS thread too plus  the impatience we were having expecting TS' replies, Front killed two birds with one stone.

[MJonmind]

Good, because I've been enjoying all this immensely!  And boy can I ever smell smoke from all the brains fired up and working hard! :icon_lol: