TIAI November 24

[GINAFELICIA]

Very interesting post bec.
The Elvis connection was so obvious from the beginning .... it was strange to me how people ignored it.

[katy (MJFAN7)]

Wow, this is a great post!!

[bec]

*Mo* wrote:


I still looking for answers on the following:

TS is very persistent on the Eliza Presley court case, yet in his last post on 9/9/2010 he states that Elvis/Jesse STILL has Linda Hood Sigmon as an informer. It's known as from December 2009 that Linda doesn't support the ongoing court case anymore because Jesse asked Eliza to stop, and Eliza refused. Then why did TS suggest we'd get some media attention for her court case and, why did he encourage and support the twitter and email rallies?

In my opinion there are just two options:

1.He's not very familiar with all of Linda's website and didn't know Linda stopped supporting the case because Jesse asked Eliza to drop it.
2.He did know, but decided that the end justifies the means.

Both options raise more questions:

•Option 1 leads to the question: Can one guide the hoaxers according to MJ's plan when one's not completely familiar with a case of which one insists is a very important part of the MJ hoax?
•Option 2 leads to the question: Why would MJ willingly go against Jesse's wishes, just to serve the purpose of is own hoax, by jeopardizing the safety and well being of a man he greatly admired?

This is the confusion that I have for several days

I don't think it's as overly simplistic as you are presenting it Mo. Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe there's reasons that we don't understand yet. Maybe TS knows the whole thing is a fake and this IS the test and he's making a point.

But I'm still not understanding how you can think TS is a fake considering the connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, AND the estate without saying MJ is dead using the murder theory, which, as we've discussed at length, in widely held opinion based on critically tested long standing theory, is completely nonsensical.

Because if you're saying TS is a fake with connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, and Sony, (but not MJ), and was developed for product advertisement, then you're saying that MJ is dead, and if MJ is dead, considering the Murray connection, you're looking at murder, and by all appearances Sony would be under suspicion considering what they stood to gain... but now I'm just theorizing in circles.

Please correct me where I'm going off track Mo. I'm thoroughly confused on how you're arriving at this catastrophic chain of events in belief.

[*Mo*]

*Mo* wrote:


I still looking for answers on the following:

TS is very persistent on the Eliza Presley court case, yet in his last post on 9/9/2010 he states that Elvis/Jesse STILL has Linda Hood Sigmon as an informer. It's known as from December 2009 that Linda doesn't support the ongoing court case anymore because Jesse asked Eliza to stop, and Eliza refused. Then why did TS suggest we'd get some media attention for her court case and, why did he encourage and support the twitter and email rallies?

In my opinion there are just two options:

1.He's not very familiar with all of Linda's website and didn't know Linda stopped supporting the case because Jesse asked Eliza to drop it.
2.He did know, but decided that the end justifies the means.

Both options raise more questions:

•Option 1 leads to the question: Can one guide the hoaxers according to MJ's plan when one's not completely familiar with a case of which one insists is a very important part of the MJ hoax?
•Option 2 leads to the question: Why would MJ willingly go against Jesse's wishes, just to serve the purpose of is own hoax, by jeopardizing the safety and well being of a man he greatly admired?

This is the confusion that I have for several days

I don't think it's as overly simplistic as you are presenting it Mo. Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe there's reasons that we don't understand yet. Maybe TS knows the whole thing is a fake and this IS the test and he's making a point.

But I'm still not understanding how you can think TS is a fake considering the connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, AND the estate without saying MJ is dead using the murder theory, which, as we've discussed at length, in widely held opinion based on critically tested long standing theory, is completely nonsensical.

Because if you're saying TS is a fake with connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, and Sony, (but not MJ), and was developed for product advertisement, then you're saying that MJ is dead, and if MJ is dead, considering the Murray connection, you're looking at murder, and by all appearances Sony would be under suspicion considering what they stood to gain... but now I'm just theorizing in circles.

Please correct me where I'm going off track Mo. I'm thoroughly confused on how you're arriving at this catastrophic chain of events in belief.

Bec, I simply asked questions.  Every question about TS is immediately overloaded with answers, except for these ones.  "Maybe" and "let's wait and see" are the only answers I have seen so far.  That means I'm not the only one who's wondering about this.

I never said MJ is dead, I never said MJ was murdered and I never said TS is a fake, yet it's assumed that I think he's dead, TS is covering up a murder and I'm done with the hoax.  It sure is interesting to see how people interpret my posts and jump to conclusions while the only thing that caused all this is me posting facts about the inadmissible DNA evidence Eliza Presley submitted in court which we all, except for Souza, seem to have overlooked.

[MissG]

posting facts about the inadmissible DNA evidence Eliza Presley submitted in court which we all, except for Souza, seem to have overlooked.

This is right. When i read about it (somewhere)I thought it was an opinion of some sort, not a fact.
So, I am still a bit confused. Was TS who wrote that those tests were not admisible for court or was the lawyer?

Also, what should we take/ learn from this case? That people can go to court wih no proofs, as happened with MJ and Arvizo? , or that the law can do anything with no proof, as happened when Neverland was raided?

[~Souza~]

posting facts about the inadmissible DNA evidence Eliza Presley submitted in court which we all, except for Souza, seem to have overlooked.

This is right. When i read about it (somewhere)I thought it was an opinion of some sort, not a fact.
So, I am still a bit confused. Was TS who wrote that those tests were not admisible for court or was the lawyer?

Also, what should we take/ learn from this case? That people can go to court wih no proofs, as happened with MJ and Arvizo? , or that the law can do anything with no proof, as happened when Neverland was raided?

The lawyer presented the facts (evidence not having proof of chain of custody) and TS linked to that blog. So all of that information was presented the right way and this whole questioning TS because of this is because people missed some important information months ago.

What we learn from this is both things you mentioned + that people start a hate-campaign towards others after being provided with distorted information. Look at the diversion of the board, all because people simply don't read the info that was given to them. Learning point here.

[*Mo*]

Also, what should we take/ learn from this case? That people can go to court wih no proofs, as happened with MJ and Arvizo? , or that the law can do anything with no proof, as happened when Neverland was raided?

Gema, I just posted facts, something which was obviously needed as it's proven by the many highly surprised reactions that people didn't know.  That's all I did, and whatever everyone wants to do with it is the people's own responsibility.

It is however important to thoroughly investigate all the evidence that's offered to us.

[MissG]

@Souza
The info even if was read, it was not understood properly and I think that it happened because of the lenght of TS´s posts. Too much info to digest, even for a native English speaker.

What I meant was if this Eliza´s case is the proof that the court system can be used even if "evidence" is not supplied according to the law. As happened when the Arvizo case or when Neverland got the raid. The second one was based on suppositions that MJ was a child molester..so they broke in to his safe  :?

Also, What happened to Mociennes court case?

[MissG]

Also, what should we take/ learn from this case? That people can go to court wih no proofs, as happened with MJ and Arvizo? , or that the law can do anything with no proof, as happened when Neverland was raided?

Gema, I just posted facts, something which was obviously needed as it's proven by the many highly surprised reactions that people didn't know.  That's all I did, and whatever everyone wants to do with it is the people's own responsibility.

It is however important to thoroughly investigate all the evidence that's offered to us.

Well, I will start using a lexicon first  :lol: and also, from now on, I will take a load of coffee as soon as an extensive TS post comes up again.

[~Souza~]

@Souza
The info even if was read, it was not understood properly and I think that it happened because of the lenght of TS´s posts. Too much info to digest, even for a native English speaker.

It wasn't in TS' post, it was in the lawyer's blog and explained the same way as Mo did. What I am saying is that people should read before they judge. The lawyer was attacked for distorting the facts while he didn't and provided us with the right information. So I have no problems with the info posted again, I have a problem with the way it was presented.

Also, What happened to Mociennes court case?

Vanished into thin air. Cut out of the movie?

[MissG]

@Souza
The info even if was read, it was not understood properly and I think that it happened because of the lenght of TS´s posts. Too much info to digest, even for a native English speaker.

It wasn't in TS' post, it was in the lawyer's blog and explained the same way as Mo did. What I am saying is that people should read before they judge. The lawyer was attacked for distorting the facts while he didn't and provided us with the right information. So I have no problems with the info posted again, I have a problem with the way it was presented.

Right on my front  :lol: I think I quit for today...i am totally mixed up.

Also, What happened to Mociennes court case?

Vanished into thin air. Cut out of the movie?[/quote]

Her case was also interesting and "more" connected to MJ  

[*Mo*]

It wasn't in TS' post, it was in the lawyer's blog and explained the same way as Mo did. What I am saying is that people should read before they judge. The lawyer was attacked for distorting the facts while he didn't and provided us with the right information. So I have no problems with the info posted again, I have a problem with the way it was presented.

Again, for those who can understand:

Whatever way you look at it, probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did post misleading information. Although he wrote about the Chain of Custody:

"Eliza can establish the chain of custody showing how she obtained the samples."

As we know by now this is not possible, and is therefore misleading information.

[MissG]

"Eliza can establish the chain of custody showing how she obtained the samples."

That sentence to me sounds like an opinion, not a fact.
This is one of the reasons why I got surprised that the tests were taken in that way and the evidence came from people not proving their id.

[bec]

*Mo* wrote:


I still looking for answers on the following:

TS is very persistent on the Eliza Presley court case, yet in his last post on 9/9/2010 he states that Elvis/Jesse STILL has Linda Hood Sigmon as an informer. It's known as from December 2009 that Linda doesn't support the ongoing court case anymore because Jesse asked Eliza to stop, and Eliza refused. Then why did TS suggest we'd get some media attention for her court case and, why did he encourage and support the twitter and email rallies?

In my opinion there are just two options:

1.He's not very familiar with all of Linda's website and didn't know Linda stopped supporting the case because Jesse asked Eliza to drop it.
2.He did know, but decided that the end justifies the means.

Both options raise more questions:

•Option 1 leads to the question: Can one guide the hoaxers according to MJ's plan when one's not completely familiar with a case of which one insists is a very important part of the MJ hoax?
•Option 2 leads to the question: Why would MJ willingly go against Jesse's wishes, just to serve the purpose of is own hoax, by jeopardizing the safety and well being of a man he greatly admired?

This is the confusion that I have for several days

I don't think it's as overly simplistic as you are presenting it Mo. Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe there's reasons that we don't understand yet. Maybe TS knows the whole thing is a fake and this IS the test and he's making a point.

But I'm still not understanding how you can think TS is a fake considering the connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, AND the estate without saying MJ is dead using the murder theory, which, as we've discussed at length, in widely held opinion based on critically tested long standing theory, is completely nonsensical.

Because if you're saying TS is a fake with connections to TMZ, Sony, the Jacksons, and Sony, (but not MJ), and was developed for product advertisement, then you're saying that MJ is dead, and if MJ is dead, considering the Murray connection, you're looking at murder, and by all appearances Sony would be under suspicion considering what they stood to gain... but now I'm just theorizing in circles.

Please correct me where I'm going off track Mo. I'm thoroughly confused on how you're arriving at this catastrophic chain of events in belief.

Bec, I simply asked questions.  Every question about TS is immediately overloaded with answers, except for these ones.  "Maybe" and "let's wait and see" are the only answers I have seen so far.  That means I'm not the only one who's wondering about this.

I never said MJ is dead, I never said MJ was murdered and I never said TS is a fake, yet it's assumed that I think he's dead, TS is covering up a murder and I'm done with the hoax.  It sure is interesting to see how people interpret my posts and jump to conclusions while the only thing that caused all this is me posting facts about the inadmissible DNA evidence Eliza Presley submitted in court which we all, except for Souza, seem to have overlooked.

I guess I'm just not understanding how you can present a theory without connecting the remaining dots as I explained. A theory at this stage of the game is a fairly involved process considering all the information we have, so to present something so counter-intuitive as this is great... but only if you go all the way with it... and I cannot find a clear path of dots to connect without involving long ago debunked theories.

So I understand what you're saying, but please understand me as well. One man's conclusion jump is another man's dot connecting and you've lost me.

[paula-c]

TS wrote :In fact, all you need to do is ask people to go to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login whether they are Elvis fans, or MJ fans, or anyone really—maybe we can even get the attention of the media! This is an easy domain name to remember, and it’s already pointed to this thread (and it will stay here, even if TIAI redirects elsewhere). Also, I will be watching this thread pretty closely; and if anyone posts ridicule or other non-evidence based objections, I will be here to call them on it (unless someone else does before I do).

Sorry, but when things are not clear what is best to give an explanation, I personally would like to know TS insisted that both the case of Eliza, the explanation allows us to eliminate the problematic nature of things, we've all been in situations life in which we had to explain, especially when something is not clear enough or not understood, .. and if it is to think for myself, I'm doing, and that's why I wanted an explanation of TS.