Latest on MJJC

any more news on missing cctv tapes?

Victoria83 said:
No matter how many words are thrown at the idea that Michael's death was simple and the work of ONE man, that changes reality not, one, bit. I do believe now that the truth will come out.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the 'update' ;)
 
meena76_4MJJ_4Ever said:
They have really underestimated the love we have for Michael.

But, just one time I want to see justice served here on earth as well. :pray:

Michael deserves this from us. He gave us so much.
Click to expand...

Yes. He deserves this from us, no matter how much flak we get for it. The "flak" doesn't matter a bit, in the end. We'll keep going, anyway. It's just unfortunate that a lot of the flak comes from FANS. No matter, ultimately. This is for his children. . . . . and I have not one particle of doubt that this is what our beloved Michael would have wanted. He relied on his fans, a LOT. Support during the trial. The Sony protests, and so on. That meant a lot to him, and it helped him. This is not that different, just a LOT more important. . .
 
Victoria83 said:
I cannot PROVE this, ok, and this is only a part of investigations that do not depend on this info for accuracy. (Even if I could, I wouldn't post here. . . because research is, ultimately, not FOR fans and nothing needs to be "proven" to fans at this point. Now does it. . . . ) After the announcement on June 25, I moved from computer to tv, and back again. Didn't sleep for a few days, actually. I KNOW I heard about the missing tapes on CNN (not Nancy Grace. I think it was Anderson Cooper?) I have excellent "recall," and always have had. I heard this many different times, and then it totally vanished from TV. I think the Enquirer story enbellished on that, over two weeks later. I've Googled extensively (as I did during the trial) and can't find any transcripts about the "missing tapes" from those first days. Actually very little of what is reported on CNN is transcribed. Sometimes LKL, but that is not where I heard it. So "we" cannot prove that info. So either the tapes are truly gone, or the LAPD have them. It's one of those two things, and we'll have to hope that the police have them. . . .

The LAPD have been playing this very closely and have had a good handle on suppressing leaks from the investigation. This either means they are doing. . . not much . . . .or that they are doing a wider/deeper investigation. I hope that's the case.

One thing people must understand is that very little of what is going on with "investigations" is actually posted HERE? That simply would not be wise, for reasons that should be totally obvious.

Some fans seem to have a lot of emotional investment in wanting simple answers and that it was only the incompetence of one doctor that led to Michael's death. Ultimately, what some fans want does not MATTER that much, and will not stop "us," those who are investigating deeply. What matters is that the truth be known, whatever that might turn out to be. Not really FOR fans at this point, but for Michael's children and family. No matter how many words are thrown at the idea that Michael's death was simple and the work of ONE man, that changes reality not, one, bit. I do believe now that the truth will come out.
Click to expand...

Victoria83 said:
Yes. He deserves this from us, no matter how much flak we get for it. The "flak" doesn't matter a bit, in the end. We'll keep going, anyway. It's just unfortunate that a lot of the flak comes from FANS. No matter, ultimately. This is for his children. . . . . and I have not one particle of doubt that this is what our beloved Michael would have wanted. He relied on his fans, a LOT. Support during the trial. The Sony protests, and so on. That meant a lot to him, and it helped him. This is not that different, just a LOT more important. . .
Click to expand...

I also remember a mention on CNN of the missing tapes--on June 25th. And, I am not surprised that any record of acknowledging the existence of the CCTV is missing--right along with A LOT of other information that was out there the first month after Michael's death.

What really troubles me Victoria--is your statement "Some fans seem to have a lot of emotional investment in wanting simple answers and that it was only the incompetence of one doctor that led to Michael's death." It bothers me because it is so very true. What happens when Murray, etal are not charged? Will it take the fact that this doctor is not indicted to force all the fan sites to come together in a common effort to seek justice for Michael? Like you, I am involved in deeply investigating the circumstances surrounding Michael's death--and there are no simple answers--so again like you, nothing will deter me either--my only hope is that the millions of fans around the world LISTEN TO LOGIC--and when the time comes---THEY STAND UP FOR MICHAEL.
 
Here's Google News Archive Search -- it is an amazing tool. Here's a link to the advanced version:
http://news.google.com[INDENT][/INDENT]/archivesearch/advanced_search?ned=us&hl=en

If it was on CNN, it will be there.

Here's the results of one of the searches I did, for the phrase "michael jackson" and the word "missing", for the dates 6/25/09 through 7/17/09, on CNN:
http://news.goog[INDENT][/INDENT]le...17/09&lr=&as_src=cnn&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a

Lexis-Nexis is the ultimate news archive, and carries some smaller news sources. It's readily available to the public in most university libraries.

If it was on CNN, it would have been immediately indexed in the Google News Archive Search or Lexis-Nexis. If CNN is part of a conspiracy and deleted it, then Google would show the story but produce a "Not found" page. But this isn't case, so Google, and presumably Lexis-Nexis, must be part of the conspiracy too by this reasoning.

Conspiracies this large never pan out, because too many people would have to be involved to keep a secret -- hundreds of technology people would have to know for something as large as a CNN report to disappear from the entire Internet. As for Google, you can forget it. And too many people love to leak information.

A far more logical and likely theory that you must consider if you genuinely care about truth is that you're mistaken. There was a mention of the tape around the house disappearing -- the yellow police tape -- perhaps this is what you heard... who knows. Someone else says they recall hearing something, and it plants the idea in your mind. Over time, memories become compressed and entangled. That was a rather emotional day to place greater trust in your recollection of that day over the entire Internet record. I sure wouldn't about mine, and I think I have an excellent memory as well.

In any case, when I simply and respectfully provide information and then am personally attacked, one must wonder if this has gotten too emotional to be about truth anymore. Going after the person rather than the content of her post is unhelpful. My information was not "flak", uncaring, or proof of being "emotionally invested in a simple answer." We all just want the truth about why Michael is not here with us. I don't care if the answer is simple or complicated, if MJ was killed by one or a thousand people. As a scientist, I can handle complexity, believe me. And I know that investigators in any field who suppress contradictory data, are unable to acknowledge error, or are unwilling to modify theories, are rarely successful in finding truth. And truth is what we need here.

Let's try to keep this to a respectful, factual discussion with minimal emotional, personal comments.

If there is not justice for Michael, MJ fans will come together if the information gathered by us is credible. Otherwise, there isn't a prayer that will happen. If people are too emotionally invested in an array of unsupportable theories, and logic has not prevailed, we will never be able to make a strong case for justice.
 
Last edited:
dirtydiana27 said:
I also remember a mention on CNN of the missing tapes--on June 25th. And, I am not surprised that any record of acknowledging the existence of the CCTV is missing--right along with A LOT of other information that was out there the first month after Michael's death.

What really troubles me Victoria--is your statement "Some fans seem to have a lot of emotional investment in wanting simple answers and that it was only the incompetence of one doctor that led to Michael's death." It bothers me because it is so very true. What happens when Murray, etal are not charged? Will it take the fact that this doctor is not indicted to force all the fan sites to come together in a common effort to seek justice for Michael? Like you, I am involved in deeply investigating the circumstances surrounding Michael's death--and there are no simple answers--so again like you, nothing will deter me either--my only hope is that the millions of fans around the world LISTEN TO LOGIC--and when the time comes---THEY STAND UP FOR MICHAEL.
Click to expand...

I remember it like it was yesterday. Yes they said CCTV tapes were missing. And YES it's part of a very large web of well connected people. The same people who made disappear the CCTV data from the surveillance camera at the entrance of the tunnel where Princess DI got eliminated. Same people that made the evidence disappear from 9/11. I won't even say the "I" word because Bo G (who said he resigned in another thread, from what I don't know) will pull the racist card and get this thread closed down.

Some fans will never doubt what's presented to them nor do indept research. But, to each his own. It's just my nature to question everything. I have an inquiring mind.

Please PM me any info you can find mentioning the missing CCTV.


I'll PM you some info.
 
Bo G said:
Here's Google News Archive Search -- it is an amazing tool. Here's a link to the advanced version:
http://news.google.com[INDENT][/INDENT]/archivesearch/advanced_search?ned=us&hl=en

If it was on CNN, it will be there.

Here's the results of one of the searches I did, for the phrase "michael jackson" and the word "missing", for the dates 6/25/09 through 7/17/09, on CNN:
http://news.goog[INDENT][/INDENT]le...17/09&lr=&as_src=cnn&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a

Lexis-Nexis is the ultimate news archive, and carries some smaller news sources. It's readily available to the public in most university libraries.

If it was on CNN, it would have been immediately indexed in the Google News Archive Search or Lexis-Nexis. If CNN is part of a conspiracy and deleted it, then Google would show the story but produce a "Not found" page. But this isn't case, so Google, and presumably Lexis-Nexis, must be part of the conspiracy too by this reasoning.

Conspiracies this large never pan out, because too many people would have to be involved to keep a secret -- hundreds of technology people would have to know for something as large as a CNN report to disappear from the entire Internet. As for Google, you can forget it. And too many people love to leak information.

A far more logical and likely theory that you must consider if you genuinely care about truth is that you're mistaken. There was a mention of the tape around the house disappearing -- the yellow police tape -- perhaps this is what you heard... who knows. Someone else says they recall hearing something, and it plants the idea in your mind. Over time, memories become compressed and entangled. That was a rather emotional day to place greater trust in your recollection of that day over the entire Internet record. I sure wouldn't about mine, and I think I have an excellent memory as well.

In any case, when I simply and respectfully provide information and then am personally attacked, one must wonder if this has gotten too emotional to be about truth anymore. Going after the person rather than the content of her post is unhelpful. My information was not "flak", uncaring, or proof of being "emotionally invested in a simple answer." We all just want the truth about why Michael is not here with us. I don't care if the answer is simple or complicated, if MJ was killed by one or a thousand people. As a scientist, I can handle complexity, believe me. And I know that investigators in any field who suppress contradictory data, are unable to acknowledge error, or are unwilling to modify theories, are rarely successful in finding truth. And truth is what we need here.

Let's try to keep this to a respectful, factual discussion with minimal emotional, personal comments.

If there is not justice for Michael, MJ fans will come together if the information gathered by us is credible. Otherwise, there isn't a prayer that will happen. If people are too emotionally invested in an array of unsupportable theories, and logic has not prevailed, we will never be able to make a strong case for justice.
Click to expand...

Well said. If we are all interested in the truth to help bring about justice for Michael, then we must be willing to question everything we think is true whether it supports our theory or not. And to sort out truth from rumor. And thank you for the archive link and info. That is a great resource.
 
callmerose said:
Well said. If we are all interested in the truth to help bring about justice for Michael, then we must be willing to question everything we think is true whether it supports our theory or not. And to sort out truth from rumor. And thank you for the archive link and info. That is a great resource.
Click to expand...

I question things and want 'solid proof' because in my head it is only things which can be proven that will be presented as evidence. I think many fans are angry at certain people and want them to be punished but I think there is no proof; only theory and I am afraid that's not going to go very far as a criminal investigation.

I do not believe Murray acted alone but I also think many can't hear or don't want to hear the truth and it makes posting on these forums very difficult because you don't want to hurt feelings or upset people.
 
dirtydiana27 said:
I also remember a mention on CNN of the missing tapes--on June 25th. And, I am not surprised that any record of acknowledging the existence of the CCTV is missing--right along with A LOT of other information that was out there the first month after Michael's death.

What really troubles me Victoria--is your statement "Some fans seem to have a lot of emotional investment in wanting simple answers and that it was only the incompetence of one doctor that led to Michael's death." It bothers me because it is so very true. What happens when Murray, etal are not charged? Will it take the fact that this doctor is not indicted to force all the fan sites to come together in a common effort to seek justice for Michael? Like you, I am involved in deeply investigating the circumstances surrounding Michael's death--and there are no simple answers--so again like you, nothing will deter me either--my only hope is that the millions of fans around the world LISTEN TO LOGIC--and when the time comes---THEY STAND UP FOR MICHAEL.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I DID hear it on CNN, much earlier than the Enquirer article. I don't really CARE at this point who believes that, because I know what I heard, and I took note of it, and I don't have to prove it to anyone here. There is much more to "investigations," anyway.

Either people will stand up for what Michael and his children really need, or they will not. If they do not choose to do the work, that's perfectly ok and I understand that people have different needs. But then, I think it would be a very good idea for some to go to another thread and leave this work to be done without additional torment by FANS. There are no simple answers, but we do not have to "prove" each detail here to fans who do not matter that much anyway, in the real work being done. They can wait for an official "announcement," and that is just fine.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread. Please do not be deflected by those who would "challenge" every idea, and demand links to every assertion. Just ignore them, and keep going. They obviously have not read nor comprehended the special guidelines to this forum, and they should not be allowed to derail threads. Please just stay on topic, and ignore them. Silence is worse than any insult, anyway.

peace, and WORK,

Vic
 
Victoria83 said:
Thank you. I DID hear it on CNN, much earlier than the Enquirer article. I don't really CARE at this point who believes that, because I know what I heard, and I took note of it, and I don't have to prove it to anyone here. There is much more to "investigations," anyway.

Either people will stand up for what Michael and his children really need, or they will not. If they do not choose to do the work, that's perfectly ok and I understand that people have different needs. But then, I think it would be a very good idea for some to go to another thread and leave this work to be done without additional torment by FANS. There are no simple answers, but we do not have to "prove" each detail here to fans who do not matter that much anyway, in the real work being done. They can wait for an official "announcement," and that is just fine.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread. Please do not be deflected by those who would "challenge" every idea, and demand links to every assertion. Just ignore them, and keep going. They obviously have not read nor comprehended the special guidelines to this forum, and they should not be allowed to derail threads. Please just stay on topic, and ignore them. Silence is worse than any insult, anyway.

peace, and WORK,

Vic
Click to expand...

You are completely out of line saying that you are standing up for Michael and his children and anyone who disagrees with you is not. I could just as easily say the same, but would not sink that low. I believe you care, and expect the same respect from you. You are the one repeatedly coming after me challenging me every time I post straightforward information, and are derailing this thread which is attempting to deal in facts. Thus it is by your logic we should ignore YOU. Your abhorrence for evidence is becoming increasingly transparent. This thread is honestly requesting information about the CCTV tapes, which I have provided and you have not. I shall stay on topic in this thread, and if you choose not to, and to deal in insults rather than facts, then you are derailing this thread and should consider moving to another thread.

If you insist that it's an offense to challenge your ideas or request links for the assertions your are spreading all over every forum, you cannot expect your theories to be considered credible. It's that simple. Now you can call again for the mods to close yet another thread because someone dared disagreed with you ... or your can allow honest and respectful discussion. It is your choice. But if you want genuine respect for your work, I suggest you allow the debate to proceed.

Peace, and honest, respectful, fact-based work that is open to challenge,

Bo
 
Last edited:
A healthy debate is a good thing in any investigation. It will often open up our eyes to things we had not seen before and make us think of things that might lead us to go down an untraveled road to find the answers so I am all for bringing things out into the open respectfully.
 
I think the antagonism and defensiveness in this thread is unfortunate . If one person says they heard something or saw something, for instance; I heard about the missing tapes on CNN. And another person posts that they searched news archives and couldn't find a reliable source for the missing tapes story. Why is that so full of drama and controversy?

Two people put out 2 pieces of information that don't agree. What's the big deal? It is not personal. Everyone who reads this thread can see both posts and decide for themselves. In any thread like this where people are contributing their theories and research results, there will be conflicting information and disagreements. It is unfair to accuse one position or the other of not caring about Michael or not wanting the truth or trying to derail the thread. If some one is an obvious troll or being unreasonable and disagreable all of the time, that may be appropriate, but not when some one is earnestly trying to find the truth.

The members of this forum will NEVER be in 100% agreement. No, we should not harrass each other or constantly question each other. But, neither should we accuse anyone who does have sincere questions of being less interested in the truth. That is just playing games with people. Everyone has something to contribute and everyone should feel free to post respectfully. And if people disagree, that is good, because it means we are thinking intelligent people and are making up our own minds and not mindless sheep following the latest theory. When we are able to take in all opinions and evidence for all view points, then we will be able to come to the wisest conclusion.

I really hope that we can do that respectfully and without taking things personally. I would actually be disapointed if everyone agreed with me, because then I would become arrogant, overconfident in my opinions and callous in my decisions. Not that there is a chance in h**l that everyone would agree with me. So, I promise that if you respectfully disagree with me I will not take it personally.
 
Regarding the tapes, I never heard of this at the time and I sat here reading every single source of everything. I do know that there were cameras set up in Neverland but to be honest, I would not know if they were set up in this house. I guess that would be up to security to know and would have handed them over to the police.

It is quite possible they only taped the people coming and going from the residence and that would not be as helpful as those inside the home if there were any.
 
I really appreciate that, folks. I know that we don't fully agree on our theories, but we can at least feel united that we're well-intentioned and share the same ultimate goals in finding truth and justice for Michael.
 
Beachlover said:
Regarding the tapes, I never heard of this at the time and I sat here reading every single source of everything. I do know that there were cameras set up in Neverland but to be honest, I would not know if they were set up in this house. I guess that would be up to security to know and would have handed them over to the police.

It is quite possible they only taped the people coming and going from the residence and that would not be as helpful as those inside the home if there were any.
Click to expand...

I know for sure, cameras taped who came in and out of the house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM8AWX2z-Go

It should show who came in and out of the house and at what specific times. That would be very important.

And is it just me, or is Michael's security MEAN?? They're like very defensive......

I don't think Michael would want his security to act like that towards his visitors. At neverland, he would have a number of his staff go outside and greet the guests with smiles, and that pertained to ANY guest, no matter how important or not.
 
Last edited:
kasume said:
I know for sure, cameras taped who came in and out of the house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM8AWX2z-Go

It should show who came in and out of the house and at what specific times. That would be very important.

And is it just me, or is Michael's security MEAN?? They're like very defensive......

I don't think Michael would want his security to act like that towards his visitors. At neverland, he would have a number of his staff go outside and greet the guests with smiles, and that pertained to ANY guest, no matter how important or not.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Moving along with the discussion. Michael was very security conscious and had outdoor and indoor surveillance cameras. We know this from videos of Neverland. . . that he had a high-level of security. It's reasonable to assume that he was security conscious at all his residences? (At Hayvenhurst there were some very peculiar and unusual break-ins by fans and I'm sure Michael wanted to be cautious.)

Let's explore possibilities. One thing I do know is that the LAPD investigation is being VERY closely guarded as to leaks and details that the public is allowed to know. I believe that's a good thing because it keeps the tabloids from interfering in the sense of polluting a potential jury-pool, and it keeps those under investigation guessing as to what the police know and do not know. We don't know for SURE if someone in the house took security tapes, or if the LAPD has possession of them. That's probably a good thing, that we don't know? But, it pretty much has to be one or the other because the tapes would be important in the investigation and they would not just be LEFT there.

If the LAPD have the tapes, then that would feature strongly in the investigation to see who left the house, who entered, and when. If the tapes vanished, then that is highly suspicious and I'm sure that's a lead the LAPD would want to follow as well. They would want to follow that lead because the removal of the tapes would indicate someone had something to HIDE. So either way, it furthers the investigation. . that investigation about which so little is known, officially, as to who the LAPD are investigating and for what reasons.

Were the Security MEAN? Don't know, in comparison to other Security teams, but the job they were charged with doing was keeping Michael safe, as a priority.
 
I also have heard a couple of different stories since June 25th...one was that the tapes were stolen and the other was that Michael didnt have his bedroom under cctv...and the third was that Michael's security team removed the tape because they didn't want his last few minutes of life to be leaked..such as hitting the tabloids or the tv airwaves.....I too wonder which story is true and which one is not.
 
So, back on topic -- the surveillance video from the night MJ died, and verifying whether this is just another National Enquirer rumor or something real. This is an important question, as this is being used by some here as the primary "smoking gun" to support a broad murder conspiracy theory.

Since this is an investigative unit... has anyone used the news search source links I provided (Google's new "News Archive," which goes back further than the standard "Google News," and Lexis-Nexis) to investigate the existence of pre-National Enquirer reports of missing surveillance tapes of MJ's home the night he died? How about reviewing other fan board discussing this? I did a thorough search of KOP, and found no pre-Enquirer reference. There are others, of course, that can be checked, but I could use some help. I'm sure some of you have a membership to the TINI forum, and could ask there as well.

(No, I'm definitely not trying to drag TINI stuff up again :), but they still may be useful for a few pieces of specific information).

It would be extremely helpful to resolve at least this key question in the mystery.
 
These are just the Nancy Grace and tabloid repeatings of the Enquirer's 7/15 story, that we've already discussed. But thanks.
 
First-hand accounts, i.e. "eye-witness" reports of these early news stories on CNN about the missing tapes should be believed, I think. I and a few others SAW these reports on CNN in the first three-or-so days after June 25. They soon vanished from the news, and I've found no transcripts, for those and other things I saw, early on. I am a researcher (cultural anthropology and "investigative writing,") by profession. I have a GREAT memory, and have been trained to note/remember observations, from a lifetime of research, pretty much. So either one believes, from myself and the others who posted saying that they SAW these reports, or one does not believe it. In the end, that's all we probably have. We can go around and around about this, but in the end it doesn't matter. Either the LAPD have the tapes, or the tapes vanished. It's one or the other, and that is as far as we can go now.
 
People are going to put varying weights on a person's recollections, on a tabloid, on CNN, on the BBC, on the Pope -- it doesn't matter, but it's up them. We each will have to decide for ourselves, and can't really be told what we should and shouldn't believe. There's no reason to suppress people from researching this further if they're interested. It's not as far we can go -- there's more that could be done to look into this. There's no need to take it personally. Those who consider this as gospel and wish no further information are welcome to run with it, because this is indeed a speculative forum.
 
I will say again, that this is a PUBLIC board, and there is a level of research that really should be done in private, for reasons that should be totally obvious given the extreme sensitivity and implications of the material and theories.
 
Victoria83 said:
I will say again, that this is a PUBLIC board, and there is a level of research that really should be done in private, for reasons that should be totally obvious given the extreme sensitivity and implications of the material and theories.
Click to expand...

And I'll say again, I don't understand. And I'm genuinely trying to.

You consider it too sensitive for people to post the results of their searches of extremely public sources like Google News Archive, Lexis-Nexis, and other public forums.

But you're comfortable posting your theories publicly naming by name Michael's friends and colleagues as probable murderers on many forums here.

What are the privacy and sensitivity criteria you're using? I'm trying, Vic, truly, but I'm not understanding them.

Nobody's questioning your truth-telling -- I hope you understand that, and that is not an issue on the table here. I have no doubt you're telling the truth about your recollections.

How about if we just let people post information here as they may glean from public sources, without trying to control one another unduly, and let people make up their own minds?
 
Last edited:
Bo G said:
And I'll say again, I don't understand. And I'm genuinely trying to.

You consider it too sensitive for people to post the results of their searches of extremely public sources like Google News Archive, Lexis-Nexis, and other public forums.

But you're comfortable posting your theories publicly naming by name Michael's friends and colleagues as probable murderers on many forums here.

What are the privacy and sensitivity criteria you're using? I'm trying, Vic, truly, but I'm not understanding them.

Nobody's questioning your truth-telling -- I hope you understand that, and that is not an issue on the table here. I have no doubt you're telling the truth about your recollections.

How about if we just let people post information here as they may glean from public sources, without trying to control one another unduly, and let people make up their own minds?
Click to expand...

I agree. It seems like we are not supposed to question anything even if we are gentle about it and that seems like censorship.

It is perfectly OK of the people who run this board want things censored and to go in one direction only but it should be stated clearly.
 
I don't think anyone here wants "censorship." I believe what is wanted is the freedom to explore without being challenged to back up that exploration with facts that cannot be known, by US, here. This is the origin of this I.U.. . . that freedom to explore without the directive to back everything up with facts that are not THERE for us to know.

What I mean by "sensitive material" is those theories put forth by teams of people working in collaboration, some of whom may have direct contact with individuals whose names and related facts I, personally, will not post here because this is a public board. I am not responsible for whatever others may post, of course, and that is ok. But if the developed theories are RIGHT, we wouldn't want it known that we KNOW, for OBVIOUS REASONS! Really. . . .

I'll make a sincere effort to explain my own research methodology. This is just one way of doing research, and I really don't necessarily mean to "instruct," but just to explain so others may understand, if they want? For anyone who posts or reads here? I am a "qualitative researcher," and have published in that field (university/academic) about qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative research differs from quantitative or empirical research in some significant ways. Qualitative research is usually used in the humanities, or "soft" sciences. I hope it's ok if I try to explain here?

I'll use an analogy. Suppose that there are pieces of a puzzle? In empirical research, the researcher might try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, but the edges do not meet and they do not fit. That results in "no proof," and one cannot move forward with "no proof." OK? There is a mess of puzzle pieces on the table, but they do not fit tightly together. So we (qualitative researchers) look at the pieces through many different lenses. Ah hah! I see now, some pieces are BLUE! Turquoise, indigo, powder-blue, and so on. They may not fit together on their edges, but they may be grouped together by color, and that makes a kind of pattern that we can understand. There are pieces of other colors, as well? It is not "proof," but the pattern IS real, in its way.

Here is another analogy (and if this is boring anyone, LOL, I understand and just skip it and go to more substantive threads?). The other analogy is HISTORY. We read in the history books that Columbus discovered America, right? That is just one way of knowing history, and one way of fitting a puzzle together. Another way would be to say, "But, America was not LOST! It didn't need to be "discovered." Indigenous people had already been living here for millennia. The alternative history has to do with colonial expansion, and privilege, and so on. Those are two primary sides of that particular "story."

The usual model of research is science-based, and for certain things that works very, very well. And not for others, that include a lot of human-behavior. The science-model is linear. A "fact" is proven, and then can be used to support another fact that can be proven, and so on. This method of research has cured diseases, and allowed people to walk on the moon. The other method is qualitative. That has allowed us to understand cultures, and sub-cultures, and historical trends, and so on. And, sometimes, to solve murder cases in addition to other means of solving such cases, including forensic analysis (scientific) and so on? The first method is linear. The second can be called by qualitative researchers, a "gyre," or even "deconstruction." That means it's primarily on the EDGES of a "truth," and "around" a truth.

I am a cultural anthropologist by education. That means I use "informants" to tell me their perceptions of cultural and sub-cultural phenomena. I ask questions, and people answer. I have no way to know if they are telling the TRUTH, or spinning it, or whatever. So, I think to myself, what is this person or that person's agenda? Where are they situated in culture and society, and what are they trying to convey to me, and why? Out of these informal accounts, a body of information develops. A PATTERN develops. No, one, person is the "authority" on the truth, but there are trends that can be seen. A "gyre" is not linear. It's like facets of the same event.

So here, "proofs" are not possible. A URL leads ultimately to what someone SAID. That may or may not be factual. But that doesn't mean a pattern cannot develop, and that the pattern may reveal truth in a qualitative way.

Sorry for being so "wordy." Just wanted to explain alternative research methods.
 
Oh no, that was very interesting and thank you for explaining and taking the time to write such a thoughtful post.

I guess I am more scientific to start with. I won't build a theory until I have a 'base foundation' to go on. My data needs to be solid on the bottom because if I go too far and then find out my 'base' is not solid and something happens to prove me wrong....POOF...the whole mess crumbles.

That is how in my mind I build a theory. I am educated in science but also have psychology and sociology background along with English literature. Put that all together and you have someone who studies with a close eye the writer and who pulls out the facts and leaves the rest out there.
 
Victoria83 said:
I don't think anyone here wants "censorship." I believe what is wanted is the freedom to explore without being challenged to back up that exploration with facts that cannot be known, by US, here. This is the origin of this I.U.. . . that freedom to explore without the directive to back everything up with facts that are not THERE for us to know.

What I mean by "sensitive material" is those theories put forth by teams of people working in collaboration, some of whom may have direct contact with individuals whose names and related facts I, personally, will not post here because this is a public board. I am not responsible for whatever others may post, of course, and that is ok. But if the developed theories are RIGHT, we wouldn't want it known that we KNOW, for OBVIOUS REASONS! Really. . . .

I'll make a sincere effort to explain my own research methodology. This is just one way of doing research, and I really don't necessarily mean to "instruct," but just to explain so others may understand, if they want? For anyone who posts or reads here? I am a "qualitative researcher," and have published in that field (university/academic) about qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative research differs from quantitative or empirical research in some significant ways. Qualitative research is usually used in the humanities, or "soft" sciences. I hope it's ok if I try to explain here?

I'll use an analogy. Suppose that there are pieces of a puzzle? In empirical research, the researcher might try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, but the edges do not meet and they do not fit. That results in "no proof," and one cannot move forward with "no proof." OK? There is a mess of puzzle pieces on the table, but they do not fit tightly together. So we (qualitative researchers) look at the pieces through many different lenses. Ah hah! I see now, some pieces are BLUE! Turquoise, indigo, powder-blue, and so on. They may not fit together on their edges, but they may be grouped together by color, and that makes a kind of pattern that we can understand. There are pieces of other colors, as well? It is not "proof," but the pattern IS real, in its way.

Here is another analogy (and if this is boring anyone, LOL, I understand and just skip it and go to more substantive threads?). The other analogy is HISTORY. We read in the history books that Columbus discovered America, right? That is just one way of knowing history, and one way of fitting a puzzle together. Another way would be to say, "But, America was not LOST! It didn't need to be "discovered." Indigenous people had already been living here for millennia. The alternative history has to do with colonial expansion, and privilege, and so on. Those are two primary sides of that particular "story."

The usual model of research is science-based, and for certain things that works very, very well. And not for others, that include a lot of human-behavior. The science-model is linear. A "fact" is proven, and then can be used to support another fact that can be proven, and so on. This method of research has cured diseases, and allowed people to walk on the moon. The other method is qualitative. That has allowed us to understand cultures, and sub-cultures, and historical trends, and so on. And, sometimes, to solve murder cases in addition to other means of solving such cases, including forensic analysis (scientific) and so on? The first method is linear. The second can be called by qualitative researchers, a "gyre," or even "deconstruction." That means it's primarily on the EDGES of a "truth," and "around" a truth.

I am a cultural anthropologist by education. That means I use "informants" to tell me their perceptions of cultural and sub-cultural phenomena. I ask questions, and people answer. I have no way to know if they are telling the TRUTH, or spinning it, or whatever. So, I think to myself, what is this person or that person's agenda? Where are they situated in culture and society, and what are they trying to convey to me, and why? Out of these informal accounts, a body of information develops. A PATTERN develops. No, one, person is the "authority" on the truth, but there are trends that can be seen. A "gyre" is not linear. It's like facets of the same event.

So here, "proofs" are not possible. A URL leads ultimately to what someone SAID. That may or may not be factual. But that doesn't mean a pattern cannot develop, and that the pattern may reveal truth in a qualitative way.

Sorry for being so "wordy." Just wanted to explain alternative research methods.
Click to expand...

I appreciate this. Knowing a little about someone's back ground explains a lot. I am a researcher as well in chemistry and microbiology. That is why I am always searching for "facts and proof". In my research, I cannot publish anything without the data to back it up. It's actually kind of amusing to see how our careers influence the way we look at the investigation. I do see your point that very little can be "proven" when you are dealing with people's testimonies and news reports. Even eye witness testimony can be terribly inaccurate. The way you approach your research is a bit like I would approach getting ideas for a research proposal. I would form a theory based on my observations, write a proposal to hopefully get the funding to do the experimental research to "prove or disprove" my theory.

It is obvious from reading these posts that collectively there is a lot of investigative talent on this forum. If we could find a way to make our different approaches work together instead of butting heads, we could produce amazing results.
 
Beachlover said:
Oh no, that was very interesting and thank you for explaining and taking the time to write such a thoughtful post.

I guess I am more scientific to start with. I won't build a theory until I have a 'base foundation' to go on. My data needs to be solid on the bottom because if I go too far and then find out my 'base' is not solid and something happens to prove me wrong....POOF...the whole mess crumbles.

That is how in my mind I build a theory. I am educated in science but also have psychology and sociology background along with English literature. Put that all together and you have someone who studies with a close eye the writer and who pulls out the facts and leaves the rest out there.
Click to expand...

You are VERY welcome. Thanks for posting some of your background, too. That explains, a lot. I know my post was long, and most people might not have time for it, but that IS the background that I bring to most things that I do of an intellectual nature. If it had to be labeled, I suppose the most accurate would be "critical theory and deconstruction." I do understand that methodology, but I'm not an "empiricist." By choice.

In general, Western culture privileges science over the more qualitative research, and I totally understand and value that mind-set. That method has given us much of importance, including the car that I drive, and the antibiotics I (very rarely) take. But yet, there are things that are more ephemeral, and are also valid. Personally, I've studied sociology, psychology (including "abnormal psychology"), and cultural anthropology. (and other things) My Ph.D. is cultural/anthropological based, with field-work done in Africa (and for those or whom this is digressive, SORRY???? Just read other things? LOL)

I wanted to REALLY explain what I see as being done here. This is not and cannot be, SCIENCE. We don't have the forensic evidence to use, and little that is factual. That doesn't mean nothing can be DONE, though.

Sorry for what might be a long post, but Beachlover, since you responded candidly, so I'd like to offer a little more?

Suppose we wanted to know more (in terms of the "Michael-investigations") about Dr. Tohme/Jermaine Jackson? For example? I'll post some of that here, so you can understand how I think these things can be approached? We know little that is factual about Tohme, or about his relationship with Jermaine, or with Michael. Many here have tried to find out about him, but Tohme seems to have little internet presence. (And please, I'm not implying that Jermaine had anything to do with Michael's death. I'm just using this as an example of how I, and others, do research.)

What do we KNOW about Tohme as fact, and about his relationship with Jermaine Jackson?

1. Tohme entered Michael's life, and advanced to the state of controlling his money (that 5.5 million that he had, we KNOW about. That is an incredibly huge amount of someone else's money to have!) and we know about his being president of MJJProductions. Even though he has NO experience in the entertainment business? We also know that he has a major interest in Colony Capital, that company that owns a large portion of Neverland. We know that because he was once listed as a principal in Colony Capital. That info has now vanished from their web-site, but some here made screen captures.

2. We know that Tohme misrepresented himself. That, in itself, brings up suspicion as to his character? That is a BIGGY! He said he was a medical doctor, but there is no evidence of that. He said he was "ambassador-at-large" for the country of Senegal. The Senegalese government has denied that. (not posting links here, but they are available in other threads.)

3. It's been stated that Jermaine introduced Tohme to Michael. We have no proof, but can surmise.

4. We DO know there is a connection between Tohme and Jermaine. Tohme was prominent in the hospital press-conference, when he introduced Jermaine. He was still THERE, and they were linked. That "evidence" is visual, in the tape of the event, and in Tohme's words.

5. We know, from his own words, that Tohme refused to "go away" even though he was fired by Michael. He gave an interview where he said he was "still making decisions for Michael." (link in the "Tohme thread," unless that's now been removed from Youtube?)

6. We can surmise that the link between Jermaine and Tohme was still viable when Jermaine did interviews, shortly after Michael's death, promoting Michael's burial at Neverland, when it's pretty obvious Michael would not have wanted that. The family over-ruled that pretty quickly. We can "assume," but not know, that Jermaine had some sort of financial interest in Neverland being a theme-park, through whatever his association might have been with Tohme and Colony Capital.

7. We KNOW that Tohme has a connection with AEG, through a marriage connection with Randy Phillips. We do NOT know how deeply that relationship runs.

8. We know that Tohme set up an auction that Michael eventually said he did not want, of ALL his belongings at Neverland, including the gates and some very personal things related to his children.

9. We know that a colleague of Tohme's was accused of threatening "bloodshed" to a CEO of Julien's auction house.

10. We know that Michael fired Tohme.

This all is material from which we can construct a "story." Some is factual, and some exists around the "edges" and is no less real. The puzzle pieces might not FIT ("science") but the colors might all be "blue?" (qualitative research.)

I sincerely hope this helps to resolve differences in approach?

peace,

Vic
 
Last edited:
callmerose said:
I appreciate this. Knowing a little about someone's back ground explains a lot. I am a researcher as well in chemistry and microbiology. That is why I am always searching for "facts and proof". In my research, I cannot publish anything without the data to back it up. It's actually kind of amusing to see how our careers influence the way we look at the investigation. I do see your point that very little can be "proven" when you are dealing with people's testimonies and news reports. Even eye witness testimony can be terribly inaccurate. The way you approach your research is a bit like I would approach getting ideas for a research proposal. I would form a theory based on my observations, write a proposal to hopefully get the funding to do the experimental research to "prove or disprove" my theory.

It is obvious from reading these posts that collectively there is a lot of investigative talent on this forum. If we could find a way to make our different approaches work together instead of butting heads, we could produce amazing results.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. You are right, there is a lot of talent here. I understand exactly what you are saying about "getting a research proposal." In a way, "science" jams what is intuitive into a more linear approach, when the "proposal" is an idea. . . a theory. . . a speculation? But then the actual approach to science is more linear and programmatic. But the INSPIRATION is. . intuitive. "What if. . .. . etc."

Here's another thing to consider? We KNOW, some of us, how to do scientific research? There are logical steps. We are not actually able to do that here . . . there is simply not enough concrete information. But "science" is not how a MIND works in all of its complexity. Scientific method is but one of many cultural constructions, and one that works very well in some situations. We also have intuitions all the time. We are on a dark street. . . . . There are people in the shadows, lurking. Are they going to ROB us? WHY are they lurking? We are not going to be able to prove that we are not safe in that situation, but do we get OUT of there, and fast? Of course we do.

Did Columbus "discover America?" Of course not. "America" was never. .. . lost.

Sorry for what seems like a digression, but the point is for us all to work together, and we are making progress on that. So. .thanks!

Carry on,

Vic
 
Last edited:
I completely disagree with the above misconceptions about science. Science does not jam us into linear thinking. It's not programmatic. It's not correct that science must be quantifiable, and cannot operate in a qualitative environment. Scientists are frequently called upon to render "best professional judgment" on a question for which quantification and certainty may not be possible or affordable. The "weight of evidence" must prevail. Most importantly, science is not just for scientists. The scientific method is something we can all incorporate into every aspect of our daily lives by being critical thinkers. Science can be breathtakingly imaginative and creative.

I still fail to see how any of the above means people interested in looking further into the "missing CCTV tape" story should be insulted and discouraged from doing so. The above discussions would be better suited, are even needed, for the new IU thread in which we're trying to figure out a solution that would satisfy all these various philosophies. Can we please continue that there, and let this thread keep its intended purpose? If you're not interested in pursuing the subject of this thread, then no one is keeping you here.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top