Latest on MJJC

Original Pic Used To Fake MJ Ambulance Pic

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date
This shows that it is a fake:
foto21.jpg

foto3.jpg
 
Someone has suggested that even this pic of MJ from Scream may have been used:
7122_1196914214169_1567909773_30537085_1028606_n1.jpg



- Why is there only 1 photo?

- Why is Michael so young in the picture?

- Why the picture is so clear, when the glass is so dark?

- Why the device is placed in the wrong way?
 
How come his skin is darker on the pic? if it was taken through a dark window then the white on the mask should also not have been white.
 
daisydaisy said:
How come his skin is darker on the pic? if it was taken through a dark window then the white on the mask should also not have been white.
Click to expand...
... when he allegedly had a "lily-white" skin ... :scratch: (but probably those reports simply were false).
 
Oh yeah this one from Scream looks better, the angle of faces is more similar.
Anyway I think that was just for money and it has nothing to do with the hoax...
I think the newspaper which bought the photo should know things we found out, but that`s quite risky...
 
Last edited:
He propably lied, but for what purpose? Professionals taking pictures use method - serial images for the second.
NIKON D200 has these possibilities.

It takes photos in jpg format. File is being put down on a computer hard drive and after
is being compresed into pdf format. Sorry, this is propably my fault. Adobe's Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) is desktop application for "capturing, sharing, and leveraging this valuable metadata".

So everything is possible. Maybe it is connected with common photoshop, or has the same possibilities - and with help of this software you can edit picture.

It nothing changes, because editing is visible to the naked eye.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you contact Ben asking about the time discrepancy? Also, keep in mind that (if the photo was fake), probably the news outlets that paid all that money to Ben knew, but didn't care, since they wanted the public to believe and make money selling magazines. Who cares in the media what's true? Everything is for money
 
My two cents:
The time discrepency of the photo is odd. As much as i disdain paparazzi, time stamps are very important to them and I don't think that would be wrong on their camera like it might be on an amature photographer's camera.
The paparazzi's slip up where he says "that day and the other d...." is suspicious. What could he possibly have been going to say, except the other day? And what does that mean?
Michael has make up on in the ambulance photo. Unexpected since he had not gotten ready for rehersal yet that day.
Michael's face does not look as thin as on the last day of rehersals.
His face looks younger, although he looked so young for his age, it is sometimes hard to tell when pictures were taken.
He looks clean shaven. Again, odd since he had not gotten ready yet that day.
I don't know the answers, but I have a lot of questions.
 
I always felt something was odd about that picture and the media had a good time spreading it all over the world very sad a damn shame
 
Cris123 said:
Why don't you contact Ben asking about the time discrepancy? Also, keep in mind that (if the photo was fake), probably the news outlets that paid all that money to Ben knew, but didn't care, since they wanted the public to believe and make money selling magazines. Who cares in the media what's true? Everything is for money
Click to expand...

You are right about the news media! They wanted to make money off one last death picture.
They could have even been encouraged to run the fake photo with extra cash if "someone" wanted it out there.
They only ever report what they are allowed to report. Most news today is made up and fake.
 
daisydaisy said:
How come his skin is darker on the pic? if it was taken through a dark window then the white on the mask should also not have been white.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. he looked like the Thriller Michael with a much rounder face and not the 50 year old Michael i was seeing in recent time.
 
I was thinking to myself the very first time i saw this pic. I said, why on earth does mike have en expression on his face, his face is not releaxed! his eyebrow/forehead muscles are not releaxed.
 
Cris123 said:
Why don't you contact Ben asking about the time discrepancy? Also, keep in mind that (if the photo was fake), probably the news outlets that paid all that money to Ben knew, but didn't care, since they wanted the public to believe and make money selling magazines. Who cares in the media what's true? Everything is for money
Click to expand...

Cris, was there any FF in front of the house at that time, and remember Ben taking pics?

Yes, if anybody coul contact Ben, that would be great.

I thought there are several posibilities of explaining the time discrepancy:

1. hoaxers' explanation: everything was prepared to take the pic eariler and in agreement with the ambulance team - well, ok..

2. they had some indsider knowledge about what was going on in the house (but then, before even CALLING the 911???), and got to (SOME??) ambulance to take the pic. without Michael inside and then made the photoshop montage, everything just to be the first ones with the photo.

3. it JUST HAPPENED that the time setting in the camera was wrong, but the edittor didn't care since publishing the picture was soo sensational and attracted public that they didn't care. Plus didn't care if this was photoshoped.


DO you guys remember who was the FIRST to publish the photo?
Insider?
ET?
 
Last edited:
callmerose said:
My two cents:
The time discrepency of the photo is odd. As much as i disdain paparazzi, time stamps are very important to them and I don't think that would be wrong on their camera like it might be on an amature photographer's camera.
The paparazzi's slip up where he says "that day and the other d...." is suspicious. What could he possibly have been going to say, except the other day? And what does that mean?
Michael has make up on in the ambulance photo. Unexpected since he had not gotten ready for rehersal yet that day.
Michael's face does not look as thin as on the last day of rehersals.
His face looks younger, although he looked so young for his age, it is sometimes hard to tell when pictures were taken.
He looks clean shaven. Again, odd since he had not gotten ready yet that day.
I don't know the answers, but I have a lot of questions.
Click to expand...
Interesting points. Thank you.
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
400mjacksonambulancenew.jpg

This was the pic ET first posted.
Click to expand...

Thanks, so that's correct, because that's the only pic that still carries the EXIF data.

Now, do you have the original site where the blurred pics was published?
I could only find the ones that were saved on somebody's comp quite recently, the oldest data originating in November.
 
daisy said:
Thanks, so that's correct, because that's the only pic that still carries the EXIF data.

Now, do you have the original site where the blurred pics was published?
I could only find the ones that were saved on somebody's comp quite recently, the oldest data originating in November.
Click to expand...

I got the blurred pic from the EMT forum I posted in the first post.
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Someone has suggested that even this pic of MJ from Scream may have been used:
7122_1196914214169_1567909773_30537085_1028606_n1.jpg



- Why is there only 1 photo?

- Why is Michael so young in the picture?

- Why the picture is so clear, when the glass is so dark?

- Why the device is placed in the wrong way?
Click to expand...
Do you have this comparison in HQ?
 
^^No sorry thats it. I know I wanted it in better resolution too so I could take a closer look.
 
just my two cents:

Focal Length 35mmFilm - short-focus lens often used in limited space, in closed room.

My mother has Nikon D700. She writes files in RAV format which gives the best quality. It's more universal format and usually applied. She can only export the file with help Adobe Photoshop Bridge. This soft opens automatically when you put card into card reader. There is no other possibility to open this file. You can switch XMP function for editing data known metadata. You can place title and so on. Then when you switch button "done" you immediately pass into Adobe Photoshop and it enables further modification. If file is saved afterwards in PDF format, it becomes compresed and all history of editing picture won't be available.
 
triniti said:
just my two cents:

Focal Length 35mmFilm - short-focus lens often used in limited space, in closed room.

My mother has Nikon D700. She writes files in RAV format which gives the best quality. It's more universal format and usually applied. She can only export the file with help Adobe Photoshop Bridge. This soft opens automatically when you put card into card reader. There is no other possibility to open this file. You can switch XMP function for editing data known metadata. You can place title and so on. Then when you switch button "done" you immediately pass into Adobe Photoshop and it enables further modification. If file is saved afterwards in PDF format, it becomes compresed and all history of editing picture won't be available.
Click to expand...

But does it save the original time of taking the picture?
 
that's the question. Any specialist is needed. I think, that original date isn't modifable.

This only proof that you must go through Photoshop and in the case of editing picture and writting in PDF format, the history won't be available. But, the word "history" may indicate that something had been done, that the file was changed.
 
so...
I've just had a taulk with my friend and he has some kind of competance.

Everything is possible and photo isn't any proof that something happend.
You can change time in your camera. The time may have been improperly adjusted.

Importing thing. There are some softs intended for changing exif data. You can clean everything or any details. You can also change time.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/EXIFeditor.shtml
 
triniti said:
so...
I've just had a taulk with my friend and he has some kind of competance.

Everything is possible and photo isn't any proof that something happend.
You can change time in your camera. The time may have been improperly adjusted.

Importing thing. There are some softs intended for changing exif data. You can clean everything or any details. You can also change time.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/EXIFeditor.shtml
Click to expand...

triniti, we know that the time could be changed or improper ;)

BUT:
1. Professional paps and photographers are not allowed to have different (than real) time settings in the cameras, because that is a basic rule for professionalists, and THIS IS CHECKED by the editors who buy the pic for publishing. This is a standard.

2. Let's say the time set was changed. WHY? WHY for 12:08? Not any other time? Why is the exif available for everybody with such mistake in it? Other data are changed as well? Why?

Unfortunately, we do not have an answer to these questions :(
 
i don't know which picture they used for the ambulance shot, but my first reaction when i saw it was that Michael looked a lot younger there, with his face even a bit fuller than i would have expected. i don't know if it was the MSG pic they used, but i think he should have been that white, and not this rather tan color. he just didn't look the way he did in TII, and especially not as thin.

i wonder how that ambulance pic would look if it was a TII photo put in there.

Daisy's EXIF data is significant for me.

as for Ben's "that day and the other d...uhh" i think it's obvious that he was going to say "day" which means he and his team were there on 2 days to complete the project. it was an obvious slip-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top