Latest on MJJC

Original Pic Used To Fake MJ Ambulance Pic

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date
Birchey said:
That image is irrelevant in any stance as it has been cropped, cleaned up and also has a logo on it so its not a source picture, is a low res edited file
Click to expand...

Exactly and this low res picture has been made to fit exactly like the fake pic in 1 min. What do you think they can do with high resolution pics with more time? They fan make a fool out of a lot of people.

If you chose to still be dupped by the media, thats fine. Being an MJ fan I would have thought that a lot more people would be aware and open minded about this being that the media have faked MJ pics before.
 
Also in reference to this so called "remade" picture, the person has taken elements from the Original ET picture and used the MSG pictre and combined them both, I.E the nose, straight copy and paste, which defeats the object of the whole idea of remaking the picture

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3949/14561277.jpg

Oh theres more too.....
 
Matt_MJ said:
Can you explain why MJ has the same whispy triangle of hair at the end of his sideburns in each picture?
Click to expand...

i'm not sure 100% about the second pic even if it's photo retouching is part of my job so go figure,but to blur or censor a photo you can use everything in photoshop,cloning stamp for example..there are other tools you can use that simply distort an image and alter the position rather than erase it.

in the first one you can see the yellow corner duplicated near M's ear...just above the blue thing under his head(sorry can't explain better).....it is clearly been cloned with photoshop,it's not a reflection,there are other elements that do not juxtapose perfectly...so the first one has been altered in photoshop 100%

the second one,more realistic,if it's a fake it's very well done,there are other pics of MJ with his eye closed,and the one from the MSG doesn't fit.
 
Birchey said:
Take a look again and tell me if it fits exactly, like I said the ear if off (can I also mention that in the ambulance pic we see the slightly different shaped ear either like the one the papers wrote about or the fact that it has a CLIP on it) and theres more
Click to expand...

Photoshop can solve all those problems your talking about.
 
clarac said:
i'm not sure 100% about the second pic even if it's photo retouching is part of my job so go figure,but to blur or censor a photo you can use everything in photoshop,cloning stamp for example..there are other tools you can use that simply distort an image and alter the position rather than erase it.

in the first one you can see the yellow corner duplicated near M's ear...just above the blue thing under his head(sorry can't explain better).....it is clearly been cloned with photoshop,it's not a reflection,there are other elements that do not juxtapose perfectly...so the first one has been altered in photoshop 100%

the second one,more realistic,if it's a fake it's very well done,there are other pics of MJ with his eye closed,and the one from the MSG doesn't fit.
Click to expand...

Yes I picked up on the corner of the yellow thing, will post a pic i did
 
comparison.jpg


Okay the second picture is from this thread the first is a screencap from a youtube video posted in this thread, notice how they both have higher contrast to the released picture, also both of them have identical compression on them, considering there is a HQ version of the ET picture but not one from the "blurred" pic, then its 100% conclusive that the "blurred" pic is made from the other one, so thats the fake

ALSO NOTE HOW THE SIDEBURN LINE ON BOTH PICS RUNS IDENTICAL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BREATHING APPARATUS!
 
Last edited:
This next pic is from the ET picture & the Blurred one, Strange how they both have the same "brow" mark above the eyes, its identical

eyebrow.jpg


AND THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN!!! To conceal parts of the face, the person who created the blurred pic has straight copy and pasted over it adding some glow and this is the reason the contract is turned up high also, to cover the details, can I also add that the Blurred pic is not actually blurred, you can increase the contrast extremley to reveal detailed edges

CopyPaste.jpg


Case and point, the Blurred pic is fake! Someone is making fools of the fans, its important to find fact from fiction, lets concentrate on the things we have real evidence for!
 
Birchey said:
comparison.jpg


Okay the second picture is from this thread the first is a screencap from a youtube video posted in this thread, notice how they both have higher contrast to the released picture, also both of them have identical compression on them, considering there is a HQ version of the ET picture but not one from the "blurred" pic, then its 100% conclusive that the "blurred" pic is made from the other one, so thats the fake
Click to expand...

yeah that's what i wanted to say!also in the fake one the pixels don't match.
 
I still can't believe your still thinking these are faked pics, there wasn't just one picture taken of Michael in the ambulance, there's several pics that were taken at the time, see evidence in these pics, all are different angles taken at the same time by different photographers:

http://americannonsense.com/wp-cont...jackson_ambulance_090625.0.0.0x0.400x400.jpeg

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2009/06/98268/400_mjackson_ambulance_newgraphic_090625.jpg

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80678247.jpg

I believe the first link is the 1st picture which has been blurred out, making you all think its not Michael, but I'm afraid it is. Sorry to be morbid, but these pics are real.
 
DJ Spins the sounds said:
I still can't believe your still thinking these are faked pics, there wasn't just one picture taken of Michael in the ambulance, there's several pics that were taken at the time, see evidence in these pics, all are different angles taken at the same time by different photographers:

http://americannonsense.com/wp-cont...jackson_ambulance_090625.0.0.0x0.400x400.jpeg

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2009/06/98268/400_mjackson_ambulance_newgraphic_090625.jpg

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80678247.jpg

I believe the first link is the 1st picture which has been blurred out, making you all think its not Michael, but I'm afraid it is. Sorry to be morbid, but these pics are real.
Click to expand...

This is what I am trying to say, Even though I dont believe in alot of the theories I do believe stuff does not add up, but this is most definately a fake!
 
DJ Spins the sounds said:
I still can't believe your still thinking these are faked pics, there wasn't just one picture taken of Michael in the ambulance, there's several pics that were taken at the time, see evidence in these pics, all are different angles taken at the same time by different photographers:

http://americannonsense.com/wp-cont...jackson_ambulance_090625.0.0.0x0.400x400.jpeg

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2009/06/98268/400_mjackson_ambulance_newgraphic_090625.jpg

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80678247.jpg

I believe the first link is the 1st picture which has been blurred out, making you all think its not Michael, but I'm afraid it is. Sorry to be morbid, but these pics are real.
Click to expand...

by "fake" I mean the first image that has been poorly altered...all the other pics look real to me..but honestly i don't have the courage to look at them again.
 
clarac said:
by "fake" I mean the first image that has been poorly altered...all the other pics look real to me..but honestly i don't have the courage to look at them again.
Click to expand...

Yep and I would like to know where Dangerous Incoporated got the info about the LAPD blurring out the face in that picture? DI can you shed some light on that? Because it could be pivotal on figuring out who faked this
 
I think it's fake also. In the first pic, you can see Michael's sideburns in all the smudge of it, and part of his ear. It looks like the face has been turned to the side or something.
 
Last edited:
Birchey said:
Yep and I would like to know where Dangerous Incoporated got the info about the LAPD blurring out the face in that picture? DI can you shed some light on that? Because it could be pivotal on figuring out who faked this
Click to expand...

It was on a blog. I will find the link. And it was the LAFD.
 
Also those of you who are comparing pixels etc. The pics I presented to you are NOT the originals so comparing them to the ET pic in terms of resolution is redundant.
 
So i was right, 2001 pic and ambulance pic are at diff angles. And i wasn't even looking at the blurred pic i thought it was so obviously photoshopped, theres no way thats anyones head.
 
Birchey said:
That image is irrelevant in any stance as it has been cropped, cleaned up and also has a logo on it so its not a source picture, is a low res edited file
Click to expand...

Well, I have just spent some time on installing firefox and the exif viewer plug in and manageed to do the exif by myself, I have it right now on my pc, and it says:

# exif:DateTimeOriginal ==> "2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00" / Original Date/Time = 2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00
# exif:DateTimeDigitized ==> "2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00" / Digitization Date/Time = 2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00


I need to do a screenshot, well... how to make it..I will figure out

I mean it does not mean anything probably, but WHY?
Why can anybody get taht exif and the time is 12.08
Just another strange thing


EDIT: I have NO idea what these smileys are doing there :)
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Also those of you who are comparing pixels etc. The pics I presented to you are NOT the originals so comparing them to the ET pic in terms of resolution is redundant.
Click to expand...

No but you see the compression and pixelation on both pics is identical, there is only one scenario where this can happen, if the blurred face picture was created from the Lower resolution ET Picture.

Plus how do we explain that there are multiple pics all from slightly different angles? A Red car in the pic, consistant with the scene. And why would someone be taking pictures from outside an ambulance if the person inside was not importants? All factors. But the main undeniable thing is the compression factor
 
daisy said:
Well, I have just spent some time on installing firefox and the exif viewer plug in and manageed to do the exif by myself, I have it right now on my pc, and it says:

# exif:DateTimeOriginal ==> "2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00" / Original Date/Time = 2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00
# exif:DateTimeDigitized ==> "2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00" / Digitization Date/Time = 2009-06-25T12:08:08-07:00


I need to do a screenshot, well... how to make it..I will figure out

I mean it does not mean anything probably, but WHY?
Why can anybody get taht exif and the time is 12.08
Just another strange thing


EDIT: I have NO idea what these smileys are doing there :)
Click to expand...

It all depends, but like what I said before the picture has been edited adding the logo and stuff so its a bit strange, could be anything. It would be interesting if we had an original of the picture to analyse.

But if the dates and times on the Exif file are relevant could also be anything to do with time difference also, that picture was obviously cropped and the logo added so its not a source image, the picture may well have been sent via email or transfer to another part of the united states to be edited??? The possibilies are endless. I also think there are some strange things on Kevin Mazurs times of the photos he took on the 23rd at the Staples of MJ too, but think that was time difference or summat cuz some are dated the 24th
 
Again for me this has nothing to do with proving a hoax etc, but just that the pic is deffo a fake. Too many inconsistencies to be real:
[youtube]ad7pzQ4_694[/youtube]
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Again for me this has nothing to do with proving a hoax etc, but just that the pic is deffo a fake. Too many inconsistencies to be real:
[youtube]ad7pzQ4_694[/youtube]
Click to expand...

That one is ridiculas, so does anyone else have that pic of Michael from 1985 ^^^ Or anyone remember Michael needing Breathing apparatus in 1985???? So lets get this straight they took a picture of Michael in an ambulance from 1985 and then completely removed him from the picture and added his new face??????????

Click on their update, they actually make it look like the 1985 pic might be fake too lol OMG this gets funny! People needs to accept that those pics a tragicaly real, you can blur out his face and backtrack (And the Exif info on that pic shows it was created couple days before it was posted on EMTBravo site) and you can photoshop of pic from hyperberic chamber on it, infact you can photoshop every picture we have of Michael with his eyes closed on it, does not subtract from the fact its REAL!
 
Birchey said:
It all depends, but like what I said before the picture has been edited adding the logo and stuff so its a bit strange, could be anything. It would be interesting if we had an original of the picture to analyse.

But if the dates and times on the Exif file are relevant could also be anything to do with time difference also, that picture was obviously cropped and the logo added so its not a source image, the picture may well have been sent via email or transfer to another part of the united states to be edited??? The possibilies are endless. I also think there are some strange things on Kevin Mazurs times of the photos he took on the 23rd at the Staples of MJ too, but think that was time difference or summat cuz some are dated the 24th
Click to expand...

Sure. Only that, as you said before, and as I also think, there are strict rules in this job - this is the time set on the camera, as one of the most important chck point for the editor.

Now, the information says "DateTime Original" and "DateTimeDigitalised" - so I can't see how this coud be edited so the date is change in this and not the other direction.
But, as I asaid, I am also open for explanations.

There is much info on this exif thing - I wonder if all of them were changed as well. And this is available, just like that.
 
Birchey said:
It all depends, but like what I said before the picture has been edited adding the logo and stuff so its a bit strange, could be anything. It would be interesting if we had an original of the picture to analyse.

But if the dates and times on the Exif file are relevant could also be anything to do with time difference also, that picture was obviously cropped and the logo added so its not a source image, the picture may well have been sent via email or transfer to another part of the united states to be edited??? The possibilies are endless. I also think there are some strange things on Kevin Mazurs times of the photos he took on the 23rd at the Staples of MJ too, but think that was time difference or summat cuz some are dated the 24th
Click to expand...

So what explains the time difference in these photos? 23rd of June, 24th Of June, Jun 25th 12:08 ???
Can't this tell us if it was taken Eastern, Pacific, Central, etc., time?
 
daisy said:
Sure. Only that, as you said before, and as I also think, there are strict rules in this job - this is the time set on the camera, as one of the most important chck point for the editor.

Now, the information says "DateTime Original" and "DateTimeDigitalised" - so I can't see how this coud be edited so the date is change in this and not the other direction.
But, as I asaid, I am also open for explanations.

There is much info on this exif thing - I wonder if all of them were changed as well. And this is available, just like that.
Click to expand...

Can you post the link to the exact picture you are running it on? thanks
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Also those of you who are comparing pixels etc. The pics I presented to you are NOT the originals so comparing them to the ET pic in terms of resolution is redundant.
Click to expand...

I was reffering to how the pixels around the blurred face are not in line with the rest of the pic in the first one especially around the cloned yellow corner,I was not confronting the two pics,just the difference of pixels in the first.
 
MJJ7777 said:
So what explains the time difference in these photos? 23rd of June, 24th Of June, Jun 25th 12:08 ???
Can't this tell us if it was taken Eastern, Pacific, Central, etc., time?
Click to expand...

Not completly sure, see with Kevin Mazurs pics from the rehearsals, these are straight forward copies with the info intact, the ET pic has been edited, thats why its not trustworthy, but the dates and times on Kevins pics are funny too
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Again for me this has nothing to do with proving a hoax etc, but just that the pic is deffo a fake. Too many inconsistencies to be real:
[youtube]ad7pzQ4_694[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Now i can't remember where i read it, 'cept it was on another forum discussing this. And they pretty much decided that the 1985 pic was a fake made by merging the ambulance pic with the photo where mj is laying in the hyberbaric chamber.
 
funkyfish said:
Now i can't remember where i read it, 'cept it was on another forum discussing this. And they pretty much decided that the 1985 pic was a fake made by merging the ambulance pic with the photo where mj is laying in the hyberbaric chamber.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt be surprised by that at all. I did think it was strange that no one else had this pic and that I dont remember MJ going to hospital in 85.
Thanx for the info.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top