I was discussing on MJJC and felt the need to make a short list with hoax evidence because there is still so many people saying we're crazy, and I thought I'd copy it here too:
You know I always laugh when people claim that us hoaxers have no evidence. There is literally so much that I always struggle to begin to name them. But for the ones in this thread who can't seem to let it go, I will just name a bunch in this post. I do podcasts (I have one tomorrow actually) and anyone who wants to call in and have a civil discussion is always welcome to join. The thing with this is that you can't expect everything to be given on a silver platter. There is plenty of evidence but if you really want to know what happened you will have to put some blood, sweat and tears in it and investigate yourself, like I have done for 14+ years. There is just too much to put in a post, or a day or even week for that matter. I could write multiple books on it. Don't read one thing and write it off as a coincidence, read it all and realize that at a certain point, something just can't be a coincidence anymore. Here is a starting point:
1. "This is my Bible and I want it to be yours... I want my whole career to be the greatest show on earth," Michael Jackson told his manager, Frank Dileo, and attorney, John Branca, as he handed them copies of a book on Phineas Taylor Barnum's theories and philosophies. (https://median.newmediacaucus.org/spring-2012-v-08-n-01-caa-conference-edition-2012the-freakshow-and-transformation-in-michael-jacksons-life-and-work/)Phineas Taylor Barnum was the MASTER of hoaxes and was celebrated for it. Read up on Barnum, Michael did. During the memorial on 07/07/2009, the Barnum circus was right there at the staples center: https://www.tmz.com/2009/07/07/the-circus-is-in-town-for-mjs-memorial/
2. On the autopsy report Michael is listed as 69 inches long: https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson, michael_report.pdf. That is only 5'7 and a half. Michael is taller than that. Here is his booking for the child molestation allegations, he is listed as 5'11": https://www.irishcentral.com/uploads/assets/GettyImages-2798936.jpg . Also during the Super Bowl, he is right next to Jennifer Batten and he is on his flat loafers and I believe she is wearing a small heel, he is taller. Jennifer is listed on her IMDB at 5'9" and I can confirm she is since I have met her and she was about an inch taller than me, I am 5'8". That makes Michael indeed about 5'11". In fact I asked both Jennifer Batten and Debbie Rowe about his height and they both confirmed he is 5'11". So whoever they measured at the coroner's office, it wasn't Michael. Also, his hair is listed as brown. Michael's hair is black. Here is a discussion on the report with a California doctor: https://rumble.com/v2uuu4y-mjdhi-live-june-24-2019-the-autopsy-report-discussed-with-a-california-doct.html
3. The EMT's claimed they arrived at the house and saw a hospice patient who was bald and they didn't even recognize him as Michael Jackson:
"Richard Senneff, the first witness in the civil trial, testified that he was initially unaware that the person lying in pajamas on a bed in the rented Los Angeles mansion was the world famous pop singer.
"The patient appeared to be chronically ill to me," Senneff testified, saying he could see Jackson's ribs. "He was very pale and underweight. I thought perhaps this was a hospice patient.""
https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-michaeljackson-aeg-idUSBRE93R04J20130430
Yet we get three pictures: one in the ambulance, one in the hospital and one at the coroner's office. In all three pictures we see a fairly healthy and fit Michael Jackson, clearly recognizable as Michael Jackson and not bald at all. Now you can claim Michael wore wigs, but he supposedly arrived at the morgue with his wig on, so how would the EMT's describe him as bald? Did they put his wig on before taking him? Did they take it off to take a peek? How would they know, even if there was a wig, that he was bald under it? Strange assumption I would say.
4. Michael's legal name is NOT on the death certificate. His legal name from birth is Michael JOE Jackson, not Michael JOSEPH Jackson. And no, if Joe is your middle name, they won't just turn that into Joseph just because it's the 'longer version' of Joe. On a death certificate your LEGAL name must be stated. Aliases can be mentioned also, but your legal name as appears on your birth certificate must be stated. We know Michael's legal name is Joe because his passport and driver's license tell us. When you renew your passport they will take your name from your previous passport, but the first one is verified by your birth certificate. Also, we know his driver's license said 'Joe' instead of 'Joseph', yet the coroner who claimed to have identified him by his DL, puts Joseph on the report. Wherever he found his driver's license is a mystery, Michael was supposedly wheeled in butt naked wearing only a hospital gown. Maybe he kept it in his butt crack? His legal name is also found on the FBI files and on the child molestation indictment. Now sure, errors can be made and if you're dead poor and your death certificate has an error there is not really a big problem. But when your name is Michael Jackson and you have gazillions in assets, real estate and music, you can be sure the estate would have had to have that fixed to be able to handle his business. They never did. https://rumble.com/v2ut6ke-michael-jackson-death-hoax-a-bogus-death-certificate.html
5. Michael's life insurance was NOT paid out. Most headlines said so, sure, but who would read the article would learn would see it was not 'paid out' but 'cashed in'. You do that when you're alive to get cash (hence why it's called CASHED in). The amount was only 3 million dollars. That might sound like a lot of money to most of us, but it's pocket change when you're Michael Jackson. I think J-Lo had her ass insured for more than that. The 3 million was just the premium he paid for the insurance and that was cashed in. https://www.contactmusic.com/michael-jackson/news/jacksons-life-insurance-pays-out-3-million_1112289
6. Paris said Michael 'cussed like a sailor' (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/paris-jackson-life-after-neverland-128510/),
"He did have kind of a potty mouth. He cussed like a sailor."
Now I don't know if you all remember how young those kids were in 2009, and I absolutely believe Paris when she says it, but I do not see him cuss like that around the kids when they're that small. As adults? Yeah sure, totally believe her.
7. The famous ambulance picture was not made as they claim it was made. If you are a photographer you would agree with me. I have expensive 'fast' lenses as they call it and modern mirrorless camera's and even with my gear I HIGHLY DOUBT I would be able to take that picture. The ambulance windows were tinted and reflective, the ambulance was moving, the photographer was moving. To even get a picture without motion blur you'd have to speed up your shutter speed significantly which means you get even LESS light onto your camera's sensor. You can crank up your ISO, but camera's in 2009 were not as good as they are today and your picture would be extremely noisy. The software back then was not good enough to clean it up like that. The EXIF data of the picture reveals even more, like camera model and aperture of the lens (Nikon D200 and a lens aperture of f/4.5). I owned a D200, was a great camera in its time, but terrible in low light performance as they call it, so it got noisy quick. Also, an aperture of f/4.5 is DARK for a shot like this and that combined with a shutter speed of 1/250, the picture would never come out like that. On the hoax forum you can find an old thread with more EXIF data from the actual photo that was around back then:
Camera: Nikon D200
Lens: 24 mm
(Max aperture f/3.5)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Shutter priority AE, 1/250 sec, f/4.5, ISO 400
https://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2326.msg34161#msg34161
This here says it all. The camera was in auto exposure on AE (which means it was set at 1/250 shutter speed and the camera then makes sure all the other settings are automatically adjusted to get the right amount of light in. But even the lens makes no sense at all. If it was a native Nikon lens it must have been the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24mm-f3-5d-pc-e ) because that is the only Nikon lens with a max aperture of f/3.5 at 24mm. When you look at the picture that was made of the photographer taking the shot, that lens seems to be the one used indeed. This is not a paparazzi lens AT ALL.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24mm-f3-5d-pc-e
In fact, this lens is terrible for paparazzi pictures, it's a lens you use for stuff with as little motion as possible. Paparazzi lenses are fast lenses, preferably with image stabilization to be able to make those quick shots. This lens was not even fully compatible with the D200, the aperture would have to be set manually. Makes absolutely no sense at all. As anyone even remotely knowledgeable of photography would know.
So even though the windows were dark, the aperture stuck at f/4.5 and the shutter speed quite high, the camera only set the ISO to only 400. Now the photographer might have set that as his max ISO (I would with that D200 probably) but then there is no way the camera would even focus unless it was on a contrasted and light frame outside and in that case, everything inside would be much more blurry and dark.
Nope. It's not just a lucky shot, it's an impossible shot. Yet no one besides Brian Oxman seems to question it.
