SoCav;4259758 said:
A single person's claim is not proven fact. Particularly when the source is a guy who has shown he has no problem with shamelessly lying when it suits him (when he defended and made up ridiculous and blatantly rubbish excuses for the Cascio tracks).
Frank Cascio defended his brother Eddie (for those tracks) by resorting to a lie.
So what?
Who in the world (being in the same position as Frank) would not do the same in order to defend his brother or sister even if that meant resorting to a lie?
NatureCriminal7896;4259770 said:
The early 2000's of Michael didn't seem like himself. maybe that's because it was before and after those allegations and trials.
he was only 43 so he wasn't that old he was much very young plus he was also a dad too now so he had to look after the kids. being a parent is alot stress. 3 by the way. two children and a baby. i mean come on think about all of that.
If MJ toured for the ‘Invincible’ album, he would have died due to his escalating health problems.
He confessed that to Cory Rooney around that time.
Cory Rooney was one of the top executives of Sony at that time & also a close friend of MJ.
Remember also, he came very close to death at least in two documented times (around 2002 - 2003).
Also, the fact that he had three kids at that time did not really play a role because he had the luxury of hiring as many nannies as he wanted to look after his kids while he was on road (in case of a touring).
I am aware also of many successful artists who go on with their careers/touring quite seamlessly even after having newly born kids.
Electro;4259794 said:
I sense a narcissistic condition.
You keep ignoring my point.
I have actually read Franks book and found it interesting and (besides some remaining doubts about that John McClain story) believeable.
The point of my criticism towards you is that you've repeatedly shown not to be able to differentiate between facts and your additional spectulation based on them. Just because you have made your mind up about the probability of a certain speculation, it doesn't turn that speculation into fact.
A fact: Frank Cascio wrote this.
A speculation: It's true, and because of that Michael later felt and did this and that.
Spot the difference?
Speculating is fine. We're all just fans here and we speculate over things we don't know. Stating these speculations as facts is not fine, it's highly annoying. Especially in this age where the MJ community is already suffering from enough fake MJ facts.
I am not ignoring your point.
What I am saying is that when things are put into the right context & thus make sense altogether, they are no longer mere speculations or fake MJ myths.
Not everything has to presented explicitly in order to be taken as a fact.
