0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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:QuoteAnd 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.
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?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginAs 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:QuoteAnd 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:QuoteIf 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.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 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?You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginEnjoying the show, smiling and eating popcorn..? News about a DWD patient dying isn't entertainment. I do not agree that all the dots connect.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 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?
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.
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.
He is a master chess player, even with us. But you're not mad at him for doing this, are you, 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.