PROOF of an ambulance video hoax?? maybe!

Give.In.To.Me wrote:
All I can say is...GAME ON!!!

rowdyangel wrote:Erm actually, I think I CAN see the tour bus when I froze the frame on the hollywood clip. Freeze at 1:37. The guy in red shirt is running directly towards the tourist bus. The tourist bus isn't huge, it reminds me of one of the Dolmus buses in Turkey but with an open top.

Sorry guys

JB.

mir26 wrote:</A></A></A></A>someone on mjhd made pics from both the video,s I will post them here too,in these pics you can clearly see the bus isent there where its supposed to be






https://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g27/tracyk1/?action=view¤t=untitled-1-1.jpg







[url=https://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g27/tracyk1/?action=view¤t=ambulace-1.jpg

rowdyangel wrote:Erm actually, I think I CAN see the tour bus when I froze the frame on the hollywood clip. Freeze at 1:37. The guy in red shirt is running directly towards the tourist bus. The tourist bus isn't huge, it reminds me of one of the Dolmus buses in Turkey but with an open top.

Sorry guys

JB.

StenniZ wrote:

rowdyangel wrote:Erm actually, I think I CAN see the tour bus when I froze the frame on the hollywood clip. Freeze at 1:37. The guy in red shirt is running directly towards the tourist bus. The tourist bus isn't huge, it reminds me of one of the Dolmus buses in Turkey but with an open top.

Sorry guys

JB.

Could indeed be so. From the front the tourbus looks a lot like the white van that passes right before it, so as much as I want this to be true, I can't say this is definite proof.

rowdyangel wrote:OMG! This is soooo confusing

I can definately see the tour bus (thanks for snapshotting that jess.loves.mj) but I can also see the difference in the shadows from the trees. Agh! My head is going to explode!!

Still think it's dodgy - like someone else said, why no police officers? And that tour bus - I would have thought that the road would have been closed off or something.

I just don't get it.

JB.

yaya wrote:hey guys,
part 2 of the video has been uploaded on youtube. you should check it out; it's just as interesting as the first one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8X--Fo2KA&feature=sub

yaya wrote:i agree about the shadows and the shape of the round reflector that appears to be oblong. i thought the thing about the hubcaps on the tires was the best part! very convincing, imo.

ezzramj wrote:hi everybody i'm ezzramj. i love this blog and i too believe that mj didn't die on the 25/06. i actually just want to point out (although many of us know it) that some of mj's siblings are cashing in on his death by releasing new songs and organising tribute concerts. maybe we can boycott them by simply ignoring them and avoid mentioning them in the blogs, they crave media attention and it's up to us to make sure they don't succeed in making $ on our beloved angel's back. also the note written in the BOOK by one of the sisters proves just how much she wants the attention!!!! we should not allow them to make money,
we love you angel, you know we do, and we know that you love us

ezzramj wrote:hi again!!! thx for your insights, i do not mean to be nasty!!! it just kills me to think they're making money over our beloved mj. we, the fans, have loved him unconditionaly never wanting anything in return but to know that he will continue to rock our world as he has done for over 40yrs. we love him no matter what

ezzramj wrote:hi everybody, just home from work and as many of us i guess, i spent the day thinking of MJ!!! and i thought of this: so we all agree that the ambulance video could be fake, we all agree that the coronor's van episode could be a hoax within the hoax, the ambulance pic is almost 100% fake, this is it pic was photo shopped, etc etc etc, but have any of us actually seen any pictures taken by paparazzi who said themselves that they'd been staking out MJ's for the past few weeks prior to his "death" maybe leaving the house or returning from "rehearsals"????? i haven't seen a single one, and knowing the paparazzi there should have been hundreds of pictures.. can anyone answer on that???

ezzramj wrote:hi everybody, just home from work and as many of us i guess, i spent the day thinking of MJ!!! and i thought of this: so we all agree that the ambulance video could be fake, we all agree that the coronor's van episode could be a hoax within the hoax, the ambulance pic is almost 100% fake, this is it pic was photo shopped, etc etc etc, but have any of us actually seen any pictures taken by paparazzi who said themselves that they'd been staking out MJ's for the past few weeks prior to his "death" maybe leaving the house or returning from "rehearsals"????? i haven't seen a single one, and knowing the paparazzi there should have been hundreds of pictures.. can anyone answer on that???

Red Velvet wrote:I had posted this thought in the incorrect thread at first. Its about the red car (and sorry if someone mentioned it in another thread already)

I'd like to know what u think, those of u who know something about photoshopping and such, what u think of this.

if the camera lens was flush against the ambulance glass, then the red car reflection wouldn't have been in 3-D, right? because the two glass together (camera lens and ambulance window) would have 'acted' as 'one' glass ...right?

if the camera lens captured the red car, especially as clearly as it did, wouldn't it would have had to have been, say, a quarter inch off the glass?

and if it was, then it wouldn't have captured such a crisp clear pic of Michael, right?

if you take the picture of the glass and photoshop a pic of MJ's head from the chamber photo ..

well..but where would u find the upper torso?

a close look shows the uneven skin blotches

are there any pics of his skin someplace where they could have added that and made it look like it goes with the head?

i realize it may be far fetched though ...unless those professionals might have some pretty advanced equipment, right?

StenniZ wrote:

Red Velvet wrote:I had posted this thought in the incorrect thread at first. Its about the red car (and sorry if someone mentioned it in another thread already)

I'd like to know what u think, those of u who know something about photoshopping and such, what u think of this.

if the camera lens was flush against the ambulance glass, then the red car reflection wouldn't have been in 3-D, right? because the two glass together (camera lens and ambulance window) would have 'acted' as 'one' glass ...right?

if the camera lens captured the red car, especially as clearly as it did, wouldn't it would have had to have been, say, a quarter inch off the glass?

and if it was, then it wouldn't have captured such a crisp clear pic of Michael, right?

if you take the picture of the glass and photoshop a pic of MJ's head from the chamber photo ..

well..but where would u find the upper torso?

a close look shows the uneven skin blotches

are there any pics of his skin someplace where they could have added that and made it look like it goes with the head?

i realize it may be far fetched though ...unless those professionals might have some pretty advanced equipment, right?

I understand what you mean and I don't think it's far fetched at all. But before we start thinking about this, I'ld like to remind you of the following:

The red car (in my and many others' opinion) could not have been in the picture at all. It was standing (parked) alongside the road. However, the paparazzi-guy, that took the alleged photo took the picture when the ambulance was positioned at (almost) a 90degree angle (compared to the red car and all others for that matter). If anything would have reflected in the window, it would have been ROAD, not sidewalk (and cars).

The fact that the car doesn't appear in "3D" like you say, is most likely because it was edited over the pic afterwards. Therefor it didn't become 'part' of the picture. So in my opinion you're right. ....or were you saying the opposite?

Red Velvet wrote:OK, well, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.

I'm going to have to say it my way lol because when you guys talk about the 90 degree angle thingy it loses me lol sorry

Is this another way of saying it :

well first let me address one other thing ..

from 00:15 seconds when the ambulance begins backing out of the driveway, to the time it actually takes off, there is no opportunity for anyone to have snapped the pic of MJ simply because we actually are watching this continuous bit of footage and the ambulance isn't standing still long enough, plus the fact that there is no one taking a picture? That's what I see.

About the red car : are you saying the red car would have had to have been parked in front of the driveway (on the other side of the street), perpindicular to the back of the ambulance and that based on the footage, it isn't there? .. only street is there?

If that's what you're saying, I'm wondering where that red car is, because its in the shot where the camera is shaking.

Where do you guys think the red car was parked? or is it not really relevant since we can clearly see that no one is taking any pictures of MJ while the ambulance is on the street?

sorry ... I'm not as swift as you guys

Red Velvet wrote:Do you think another relevant thing is the fact that on the tour bus video there seems to be a lot more people and a lot more traffic?

At first I thought that since the Hollywood phtographer was so much closer could be the reason he got the security guy's hand on the window as the ambulance was backing, but that other guy is all up on the back of the ambulance also and there is none of that 'extra' activity from him in the Hollywood video.

Do you think that's relevant also? or do you think its a perspective thing somehow?

thanks for helping me btw

Red Velvet wrote:oh wait! I (think) I get it now!

Looking at this Starline Tourist video I think I see what you mean.

Are you saying the red car would have had to have been parked at a Right angle like say, alongside the trash dispensers for the guy in the red shirt to have taken that picture reflecting the red car? If so, I see what you mean, because the ambulance too off straight-way and there is no car there.

here's the tour bus video for easy reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_VWCpIgrJI&feature=related

dunno_it wrote:Stenni and Red Velvet, thank you so much for your accounts, now i'm starting to understand the whole thing with the red car, Stenni, now i'm really looking forward to your posting the screenshots, boy, this is so interesting! And I am also looking forward to your opinions on the third part of the death of a Moonwalker...Is it possible for the camera man to be still filming the ambulance whent it was already gone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8iw4DknNG8&feature=channel_page

MiaPaparazzi wrote: OK I am a photog and I have been looking at all this over and over again to figure out HOW the red car is in the pic. I can't. There is NO way, NO how that car is reflected in the picture like they show. First the flash has to either bounce THROUGH the tint (which acts as a reflector in a way, remember this!) and the only way to do that is to have the camera lens up against the glass OR use no flash and hope the sunlight is enough to see through tint (which it is not). As for the angle in comparison to the shot and photog and ambulance... it won't work. I am planning on trying to re-construct (not using ambulance ha ha) and trying to see if I can re-create something relatively similar.... I dont think it is possible though. IMO the car was photoshopped in for 1 reason:


It is a distraction to the eye




(wondering why I put the stars in the post? did they DISTRACT you from what I wrote in any way? )