Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 521

Thread: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

   
  1. #31
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Virre View Post
    Frank said Emily is not Shana awhile ago.
    He said it where? I only know his twitter timeline. Was it in some interview?

  2. #32
    Points: 64,872, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    HIStory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Points
    64,872
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,489
    Thanked 35,107 Times in 9,070 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    @redfrog

    I don't have a dog in this, but you seem to because you are writing long essays to try to convince me that Shana is the real deal. I am sceptical and I am yet to see anything that would dissolve that scepticism, but I am open to evidence. Nothing that you listed so far is that evidence to me. You are just quoting people about MJ making flirty remarks about Shana. I can see that but that doesn't mean a relationship.

    Also you went from going on in the allegations thread about MJ supposedly being asexual to now wanting so much to believe this Shana story. It's weird. It's like you desperately need this for some reason regarding the allegations. If Shana's story is true, cool, but I am not desperate to believe it.

    We will see, but so far to me the things Shana is posting seem more like a business relationship than a romantic one. Eg.

    Shana Mangatal

    Follow · April 8 ·



    #fbf I just found these notes that I scribbled 2 decades ago. It was 20 years ago TODAY that Michael Jackson called me at work and asked if I would be able to take some time off to act in a short film with him called "2 Bad". Less than a week later we were on the set filming his masterpiece that would later be called "Ghosts". Time flies. Cherish every moment.

  3. #33
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    @redfrog

    I don't have a dog in this, but you seem to because you are writing long essays to try to convince me that Shana is the real deal. I am sceptical and I am yet to see anything that would dissolve that scepticism,
    You apparently didn't pay attention. Nowhere did I say that I am convinced that she is telling the truth in fact I said
    that I want solid proof before I make up my mind.
    I just pointed out that so far I haven't seen anything which proves that she is a liar (unlike with the ex-employees you compared her to) and there is some evidence which shows that she is telling the truth. But most of all I wanted to see if anyone has
    evidence that she is a liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    but I am open to evidence. Nothing that you listed so far is that evidence to me. You are just quoting people about MJ making flirty remarks about Shana. I can see that but that doesn't mean a relationship.
    They didn't just say MJ was making flirty remarks and I think that's obvious, especially with Gregg Mitchell who is fully behind Shana on this (based on his FB posts) knowing full well that the title of the book includes "secret romance". In fact the others who were quoted also know what the book is about. They may be lying but I would like to know why they are lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    Also you went from going on in the allegations thread about MJ supposedly being asexual to now wanting so much to believe this Shana story. It's weird.
    No it's not weird. For one thing you interpret my posts like I want to believe her when I simply pointed out that she said nothing so far that would make her delusional like Tatiana. You however did insinuate that. If her claim about Paul Walker is the best you have against her that's not convincing.
    Also, while based on the currently available proof MJ clearly didn't have much of a need for sexual contact with anyone I'm open to new evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    It's like you desperately need this for some reason regarding the allegations.
    No it's not like that at all and once again you misinterpret what I say.
    I want to get to the bottom of this not only because I know how haters use this type of thing against MJ to prove that he liked boys not females but because I'm interested in the potential witnesses against Robson and Safechuck and I sure wouldn't want someone on the stand who fabricates a relationship with MJ. The people who knew MJ during the relevant period and who saw him with those families are relevant whether you like to admit it or not.
    So I would like to see any and all evidence that Shana is lying and so far I haven't seen any. You don't have any either, apparently.


    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    We will see, but so far to me the things Shana is posting seem more like a business relationship than a romantic one. Eg.
    So you think the girl she was talking about on the Glenda tape is not her? You think it's just a coincidence that she was on the tour, dealt with the band and was a model? Can be, but then who the heck was he talking about?

  4. #34
    Points: 64,872, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    HIStory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Points
    64,872
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,489
    Thanked 35,107 Times in 9,070 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    If her claim about Paul Walker is the best you have against her that's not convincing.
    So I would like to see any and all evidence that Shana is lying and so far I haven't seen any. You don't have any either, apparently.
    ^ LOL. You are funny. It's not up to me to disprove Shana's story. It's up to her to prove it in the first place. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes a claim.

    If she is telling the truth she should have some evidence of this romance - like personal notes written to her by MJ or poems or photos in a personal setting, not just the ones she shared so far that any fan can have. With such a long relationship that she claims she must have something more personal and more intimate.
    Last edited by HIStory; 22-05-2016 at 08:01 PM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to HIStory For This Useful Post:


  6. #35
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    ^ LOL. You are funny. It's not up to me to disprove Shana's story. It's up to her to prove her story. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes a claim.
    Yes she has to show proof but that doesn't change the fact that your arguments so far as to why you think she is a liar
    are weak to say the least. And unlike me who is on the fence you did suggest that she is deluded and making shit up.
    You sounded like someone who already dismisses her as just another Tatiana.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but you think she is a liar because
    - she made shit up about Paul Walker and she thinks all kind of celebs had crush on her i.e. she is delusional
    - her mother supports her because she is her mother
    - the people who are quoted supporting her book only referred to flirting not a romance
    - people lie for all kinds of reasons so those who are quoted can be liars too

    You can easily see how this is far from being the solid evidence we have against the ex-employees.

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm investigating this matter because of the way haters use MJ's relationships with women or lack thereof to prove that he was into boys and because of its potential impact on the Robson/Safechuck case including the possibility of the
    Glenda tapes being played in court. So I just want to see reasonable arguments or proof people who think she is a liar may have.
    If you remember Zonen did argue that while MJ slept in a bed with Brett for 365 days no similar long term relationship was mentioned in the courtroom and therefore - he suggested - he was obviously a boy molester. He does the same thing with his marriage with Lisa.
    He did the same with Brooke when he questioned McManus where she was sleeping while she was on the ranch. Haters like him know they have to undermine his relationships with women for people to believe that he was into boys.
    You can bet that Robson's lawyers would try to make the same case. If Shana is telling the truth she could easily make Robson look like a liar especially since the supposed romance and the supposed molestation were going on during the same period.


    What do you think about the girl MJ talked about on the tape? You think it's a coincidence? Do you have any idea who the girl she was talking about is, if it's not Shana?
    Last edited by redfrog; 22-05-2016 at 08:31 PM.

  7. #36
    Points: 64,872, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    HIStory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Points
    64,872
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,489
    Thanked 35,107 Times in 9,070 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post
    Yes she has to show proof but that doesn't change the fact that your arguments so far as to why you think she is a liar
    are weak to say the least. And unlike me who is on the fence you did suggest that she is deluded and making shit up.
    You sounded like someone who already dismisses her as just another Tatiana.

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm investigating this matter because of the way haters use MJ's relationships with women or lack thereof to prove that he was into boys and because of its potential impact on the Robson/Safechuck case including the possibility of the
    Glenda tapes being played in court. So I just want to see reasonable arguments or proof people who think she is a liar may have.

    I knew that this is all about the allegations and haters to you. That's all you ever focus on regarding MJ. LOL. Whether Shana was his girlfriend or not doesn't prove or disprove the allegations. Many child molesters are married to women or date women. Mez could have called Lisa Marie, maybe others if he had wanted to prove MJ was heterosexual (which IMO he was, on contrary with your assumption about him being asexual), but he knew it's as much of a red herring as Sneddon trying to prove MJ was gay by showing art books. He focused on the actual case rather than red herrings or making up lies in MJ's defense (such as him being asexual) which was good IMO.

    What do you think about the girl MJ talked about on the tape? You think it's a coincidence? Do you have any idea who the girl she was talking about is, if it's not Shana?
    The woman on the tapes is called Melissa, not Shana. That's what I think about it. You may think MJ used a code name for her or something but that again is just speculation. There is no evidence the Melissa of the Glenda tapes is Shana. If Melissa is anyone significant in MJ's life and if she has something significant to say in defense of MJ then hopefully the Estate will find out who she is and will find her.

    If Shana was indeed MJ's girlfriend and she has something significant to say in MJ's defense then hopefully she will give a truthful testimony. But first she should have some sort of evidence for the relationship she claims. You keep missing the point on who has the burden of proof here. It's not me. I have every right to be sceptical as long as a claim is not proven. I don't need to prove anything to you in order to be sceptical either. I only need to point out that the claim is not something that was proven.

    I suggest you take the allegations talk to the relevant thread. No need to pollute this one with that too just because you are unable to talk about anything else when it comes to MJ.
    Last edited by HIStory; 22-05-2016 at 08:33 PM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HIStory For This Useful Post:


  9. #37
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    I knew that this is all about the allegations and haters to you. That's all you ever focus on regarding MJ. LOL.
    Nope, it's just this is the subject I talk about here in order to gather info and have better arguments against haters.
    I don't see much reason to post about other things that doesn't mean I'm not interested in other things.
    Why do you think that's funny?
    In case you missed it this is the one thing which killed MJ and which they are trying to use to destroy his legacy once and for all as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    Whether Shana was his girlfriend or not doesn't prove or disprove the allegations. Many child molesters are married to women or date women.

    No, this is another thing haters like to use. The Lanning profile.
    Yes people who are serial boy molesters may get married to cover what they really are. And heterosexual male molesters
    may be attracted to little girls and women.
    But I can't think of any serial boy molester who go from one woman to another to another who have romances who show a continuous
    interest in women for years and years whether they are married to them or not. You don't see that with Sandusky, Porter, Geoghan, Grady, Bambaataa.
    One of his accusers just recently challenged people to show any woman he was with! People do make this argument whether you admit it or not
    and Zonen made it too during the trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    Mez could have called Lisa Marie, maybe others if he had wanted to prove MJ was heterosexual (which IMO he was, on contrary with your assumption about him being asexual)

    Lisa Marie would have been a horrible witness because she trashed MJ in interviews and even made remarks which indicate she was not sure he was innocent
    and most of all the perception of that marriage was that it was a sham.
    Another woman who was kept secret (therefore cannot be portayed as mere PR or a sham) and had a relationship with MJ during the very period when Senddon/Zonen said he was crazy about boys would have been very effective to discredit his accusers.

    Asexuals can be hetero, homo or bi regarding their attraction and may even have sex to make kids or please the person they love. You don't seem to understand
    what asexuality is.

    It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities.
    Due to the wide range of this spectrum, gray asexuality encompasses a variety of individuals under the "ace umbrella." Individuals who identify with gray asexuality are referred to as being gray-A, a grace or a gray ace. Within this spectrum includes terms such as "hyposexual", "demisexual", "semisexual", "low sexual intensity", "asexual-ish" and "sexual-ish".
    Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking sexual attraction or a desire for sex, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to pleasure themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    , but he knew it's as much of a red herring as Sneddon trying to prove MJ was gay by showing art books.
    Whether you admit it or not portraying MJ as generally attracted to males is an effective weapon against him. It's stupid but effective. I see it all the time.
    He was gay therefore he was a molester.
    And while Sneddon/Zonen tried to have it both ways (MJ lost interest in boys when they got too old but liked looking at grown men having sex)
    in a civil court the perception that he was attracted to males could make the difference, whether they think it's more likely than not that he molested boys.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    He focused on the actual case rather than red herrings or making up lies in MJ's defense (such as him being asexual) which was good IMO.
    The actual case involved the prosecutors arguing that MJ was into males and he never had a real relationship with a woman.
    Mez almost got a hung jury because one juror couldn't get over the Brett Barnes in bed for 365 days
    bullshit, because he thought a pattern of MJ being interested in boys aged 10-13 was established and
    the other one tried to bring in a book about pedos to prove that MJ fit the profile which included
    - limited peer relationships
    - lack of interest in opposite sex from early adolescence
    - if married not having sexual relationship with the wife

    So yeah Tom Mez was damn lucky that those two finally gave up in the jury room only to see them on TV a few weeks later telling the world
    that MJ was a pedo and got away with it.

    Anyway, it's interesting that you demand proof from Shana that she had a sexual relationship with MJ but at the same time you don't have any proof
    that any other woman except Lisa Marie ever had sex with him still you are absolutely sure he was heterosexual.
    Do you think having sex with one woman he wanted to have kids with prove that he was not asexual? How so?



    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    The woman on the tapes is called Melissa, not Shana. That's what I think about it. You may think MJ used a code name for her or something but that again is just speculation. There is no evidence the Melissa of the Glenda tapes is Shana.
    So you think it's a coincidence that this Melissa (if that's her name indeed) was also on the Dangerous tour, was also modelling and was also dealing with the band?
    That's what you are saying?
    Actually he calls her a girl not a woman so she must have been rather young which Shana was in 1992.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    You keep missing the point on who has the burden of proof here. It's not me. I have every right to be sceptical as long as a claim is not proven.
    You were not sceptical. You said she is like Tatiana and suggested that she is deluded, i.e. a liar.
    I am on the fence. Your statements clearly showed that you already made up your mind.
    Which is fine if that's what you think I just wanted to know why you think that.
    Noone said that what she said is proven. You are missing the point.
    If you call someone delusional it's your job to prove that she is lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    I suggest you take the allegations talk to the relevant thread. No need to pollute this one with that too just because you are unable to talk about anything else when it comes to MJ.

    This thread is about Shana Mangatal's book and what she is saying and her credibility. All my posts mostly focused on that much more than just the allegations in general so I think it makes sense to talk about this here. Also, the other thread is supposed to be about Robson and Safechuck case only one of the admins made that clear if I remember correctly.
    Last edited by redfrog; 22-05-2016 at 09:47 PM.

  10. #38
    Points: 64,872, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    HIStory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Points
    64,872
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,489
    Thanked 35,107 Times in 9,070 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    ^ Yawn. I have no interest in discussing with this any further, because anything I say will just give you an excuse to further derail the thread to turn it into your pet topic which is the allegations. You literally can't speak about anything else when it comes to MJ. You cannot discuss any topic without somehow writing long essays about the allegations. Now once again you write essays about the allegations, the trial, Brett, the Chandlers, the prosecution and what not in a thread that is about Shana Mangatal's book.

    I have no obligation to believe Shana just because she says something. You will just have to deal with it. If she provides proof that changes my mind about her story then I will change my mind. I have no dog in this fight while you obviously do. The burden of proof is on her, no matter how you try to twist it. That's where it ends to me.
    Last edited by HIStory; 22-05-2016 at 10:29 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to HIStory For This Useful Post:


  12. #39
    Points: 24,667, Level: 95
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 683
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    6,943
    Points
    24,667
    Level
    95
    Thanks
    20,003
    Thanked 6,844 Times in 3,035 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post
    Nope, it's just this is the subject I talk about here in order to gather info and have better arguments against haters.
    I don't see much reason to post about other things that doesn't mean I'm not interested in other things.
    Why do you think that's funny?
    In case you missed it this is the one thing which killed MJ and which they are trying to use to destroy his legacy once and for all as we speak.




    No, this is another thing haters like to use. The Lanning profile.
    Yes people who are serial boy molesters may get married to cover what they really are. And heterosexual male molesters
    may be attracted to little girls and women.
    But I can't think of any serial boy molester who go from one woman to another to another who have romances who show a continuous
    interest in women for years and years whether they are married to them or not. You don't see that with Sandusky, Porter, Geoghan, Grady, Bambaataa.
    One of his accusers just recently challenged people to show any woman he was with! People do make this argument whether you admit it or not
    and Zonen made it too during the trial.
    PLEASE!!! Take this over to the Trials and Tribulations thread-your only interest in Shana and her book is if she'll be a good witness or not in the Robson trial-which we all hope to God there will not be a trial at all-and it gets THROWN OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    @redfrog

    I don't have a dog in this, but you seem to because you are writing long essays to try to convince me that Shana is the real deal. I am sceptical and I am yet to see anything that would dissolve that scepticism, but I am open to evidence. Nothing that you listed so far is that evidence to me. You are just quoting people about MJ making flirty remarks about Shana. I can see that but that doesn't mean a relationship.

    Also you went from going on in the allegations thread about MJ supposedly being asexual to now wanting so much to believe this Shana story. It's weird. It's like you desperately need this for some reason regarding the allegations. If Shana's story is true, cool, but I am not desperate to believe it.

    We will see, but so far to me the things Shana is posting seem more like a business relationship than a romantic one. Eg.





    I have no reason to doubt Shana's story, but it does seem odd that she talked about being "dumped" when Michael married Lisa Marie-in 94-
    then she shows this note from 96 where Michael doesn't recognize her voice?? Maybe it's because I'm just reading part of it.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to barbee0715 For This Useful Post:


  14. #40
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    ^ Yawn. I have no interest in discussing with this any further, because anything I say will just give you an excuse to further derail the thread to turn it into your pet topic which is the allegations.

    What? I didn't derail anything I was asking you and others about Shana's claims and the people who support her
    and I explained why I'm interested .

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    You literally can't speak about anything else when it comes to MJ.
    Yes I can and I did and now you are flat out lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    You cannot discuss any topic without somehow writing long essays about the allegations. Now once again you write essays about the allegations, the trial, Brett, the Chandlers, the prosecution and what not in a thread that is [B]about Shana Mangatal's book.
    Yes this thread is about Shana's book and her credibility which is why I asked you about her and what her supporters say about the book repeatedly. Why I was interested in those in the first place won't change the subject. It's odd that you talk like it's odd someone would only care about Shana's story in terms of how it affects MJ's reputation and legacy like that doesn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    I have no obligation to believe Shana just because she says something. You will just have to deal with it.
    Noone said you have to believe her you are putting words in my mouth.
    I said I'd like to know why you think she is a liar and challenged you to explain why you think she is a liar.
    There is a difference between being sceptical and calling someone deluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    If she provides proof that changes my mind about her story then I will change my mind. I have no dog in this fight while you obviously do. The burden of proof is on her, no matter how you try to twist it. That's where it ends to me.
    You repeat yourself and sound hysterical when you could have simply answered my question with a yes or no:
    do you think it's just a coincidence that the girl MJ talks about on the Glenda tape happens to be a coordinator
    (just like Shana was) a model (just like Shana was) young (just like Shana was in 1992) and with him on the Dangerous tour
    (just like Shana was)?
    It's a simple question. If you think it's a coincidence fine but I sure would like to hear some reasonable explanation
    how two different girls could fit the same profile and both be close to MJ?

    Quote Originally Posted by barbee0715 View Post
    PLEASE!!! Take this over to the Trials and Tribulations thread-your only interest in Shana and her book is if she'll be a good witness or not in the Robson trial-which we all hope to God there will not be a trial at all-and it gets THROWN OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hell I hope so too. But I'm also interested in her story because of what haters tend to use against MJ.
    The Robson thread was said to be for Robson/Safechuck alone. That's what I remember the admin said.
    What other thread exists for the allegations in general?


    Quote Originally Posted by barbee0715 View Post
    I have no reason to doubt Shana's story, but it does seem odd that she talked about being "dumped" when Michael married Lisa Marie-in 94- then she shows this note from 96 where Michael doesn't recognize her voice?? Maybe it's because I'm just reading part of it.
    This is news to me. What note?
    Did she say that she was dumped? Where and where did she say that?
    Last edited by redfrog; 22-05-2016 at 11:11 PM.

  15. #41
    Points: 12,492, Level: 73
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 358
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,225
    Points
    12,492
    Level
    73
    Thanks
    6,580
    Thanked 2,769 Times in 764 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    ^ LOL. You are funny. It's not up to me to disprove Shana's story. It's up to her to prove it in the first place. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes a claim.

    If she is telling the truth she should have some evidence of this romance - like personal notes written to her by MJ or poems or photos in a personal setting, not just the ones she shared so far that any fan can have. With such a long relationship that she claims she must have something more personal and more intimate.
    This is what I don't understand. She claims to have been with Michael for YEARS yet all she can provide as evidence are pictures of her with Michael at work and pictures with his staff? That only proves she knew him, as did dozens more women. It doesn't even prove that they were (close) friends. Where are the pictures of them holding hands, hugging, kissing, going out to dinner together, being on holiday together, or anything else that people in love do? Knowing how much Michael loved to write, can't she share a little note that he wrote for her with us? She's obviously not that concerned with respecting Michael's privacy since she's writing a book about their "relationship" and doesn't mind sharing her own notes which she conveniently kept all these years. I'm not holding my breath though. If she actually had any real evidence, she would have shared it long ago seeing as she is so desperate for her fans (ugh) and the media to believe her.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LindavG For This Useful Post:


  17. #42
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    Where are the pictures of them holding hands, hugging, kissing, going out to dinner together, being on holiday together, or anything else that people in love do?
    I don't know what she has if anything but if I wanted to keep a relationship secret I wouldn't want such pictures to be taken.
    Do you believe the bodyguards and their story about Flower and Friend? They seemed genuine but the story is odd, to say the least
    and there is no evidence to back it up. Still can be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    Knowing how much Michael loved to write, can't she share a little note that he wrote for her with us?
    It's not that Lisa shared any such notes with us in fact she was livid when one went public. She kept them for herself
    even after most people said the marriage was a sham.
    Maybe Shana wants everyone to buy the book to see that evidence. If there is nothing there she should come up with
    some really good explanation why she has only one photo with him and nothing more.

    Anyway, what do you think about the similarities between Shana and the girl MJ as talking about to Glenda, notwithstanding the
    different names?
    This is what Todd Mangatal said about her in 2004:

    As for the day of the event, her responsibility was to take care of all the Jackson family needs, therefore she coordinated everything that involved the Jackson family, the photos, the place they would be seated, and whatever they needed, etc. As Shana and I talked I asked her to give me some details about the day of the event. She pointed out that she was very pleased to assist with the coordinating, and felt the event was very successful.
    She was a model.
    http://s33.postimg.org/obvhyo9fz/model.jpg

    She was also around the band members.
    http://s33.postimg.org/heaoeg2q7/band.jpg

    She was on the Dangerous tour.

    And this is what MJ said about the girl who cared about him and was on tour with him for a while in 1992:

    MJ She's a, you now, she's a coordinator and stuff and she does a lot of stuff with the band.
    Q She models too?
    MJ: She does all kinds of things.
    How many girls were with MJ on the Dangerous tour who were coordinators, hung out with the band and modelled too
    and cared about him which MJ acknowledged on the tape?
    What are the odds?
    Last edited by redfrog; 22-05-2016 at 11:44 PM.

  18. #43
    Points: 12,492, Level: 73
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 358
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,225
    Points
    12,492
    Level
    73
    Thanks
    6,580
    Thanked 2,769 Times in 764 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post
    I don't know what she has but if I wanted to keep a relationship secret I wouldn't want such pictures to be taken.
    Just because Michael (supposedly) didn't want to share this relationship with the world doesn't mean he didn't allow any pictures to be taken for himself. In fact I think it's pretty much impossible to be with someone for years without any record of it, especially when it's someone like Michael who was always surrounded by cameras and who was always leaving notes.

    Do you believe the bodyguards and their story about Flower and Friend? They seemed genuine but the story is odd, to say the least
    and there is no evidence to back it up.
    I don't know which bodyguards and which story you are talking about but as a general rule, I don't believe the bodyguards on their word, no. And I think it's very unprofessional for them to be sharing personal details about Michael's life like that, no matter what their intentions are.
    It's not that Lisa shared any such notes with us in fact she was livid when one went public. She kept them for herself
    even after most people said the marriage was a sham.
    But we know Lisa married Michael, she has nothing to prove to the world. Michael is on record talking about how he wanted to have children with her. Besides, Lisa is not the one writing a book about their relationship so I have no idea why you brought her up.

    Maybe Shana wants everyone to buy the book to see that evidence. If there is nothing there she should come up with
    some really good explanation why she has only one photo with him and nothing more.
    We'll see. In any case your argument that Michael being with Shana somehow proves he wasn't a pedophile is absurd. If two marriages didn't convince the haters that Michael had no sexual interest in children, this sure as hell won't. Not to mention it's a flawed argument to begin with and I hope you're not actually using this in discussions with haters.

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LindavG For This Useful Post:


  20. #44
    Points: 5,483, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    945
    Points
    5,483
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 776 Times in 331 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    Just because Michael (supposedly) didn't want to share this relationship with the world doesn't mean he didn't allow any pictures to be taken for himself. In fact I think it's pretty much impossible to be with someone for years without any record of it, especially when it's someone like Michael who was always surrounded by cameras and who was always leaving notes.
    If they wanted to keep it secret then yes it's possible they were never in a situation together
    where someone could have taken a revealing photo. That's the whole point of a SECRET relationship, don't you think?
    Anyway, I was talking about the type of photos which would indicate a romantic relationship.
    I don't think photos showing them in the same room or walking side by side somewhere would prove anything.
    At the same time her not having any "romantic" photos in and of itself would not prove she is lying, either.
    She just should give a reasonable explanation why she has no more than one photo with him,
    which so far she has not.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    I don't know which bodyguards and which story you are talking about but as a general rule, I don't believe the bodyguards on their word, no. And I think it's very unprofessional for them to be sharing personal details about Michael's life like that, no matter what their intentions are.
    Javon Beard, Mike Garcia and BIll Whitfield. All three talked about MJ making out with some mystery woman in his car and Beard and Whitfield wrote about two women named Flower and Friend going on dates with him in Virginia in 2007.
    In any case, there is no proof no photo, no letter, no notes not even the women admitting it. Does that mean they are liars? I can only say I watched their body language while they were talking about this and if they were all lying there deserve an Oscar. Besides, if you believe Pharell Williams the bodyguard's story is not that farfetched.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    But we know Lisa married Michael, she has nothing to prove to the world. Michael is on record talking about how he wanted to have children with her. Besides, Lisa is not the one writing a book about their relationship so I have no idea why you brought her up.
    You mentioned the notes. I just pointed out that just because someone who loved MJ didn't release notes
    doesn't mean she is a liar whether she is writing a book or not. Lisa very clearly didn't want anyone to see those notes (unless she was lying too). There are other ways to prove her claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    We'll see. In any case your argument that Michael being with Shana somehow proves he wasn't a pedophile is absurd.

    Plenty of things prove that he was not a pedophile, Shana's story does not change that. But if there was a romance it's just one more piece which proves he was attracted to women and the type of piece which Joe Q can easily comprehend.
    If you read the comment at the Daily Fail article it's clear that the brainwashed morons simply cannot imagine that MJ had a romance with a woman because she is a woman! Acknowledging that she is telling the truth would seriously undermine their idea of who MJ was which is that he was a gay pedo.
    It's a fact that haters and all the assholes in the general public frequently bring up MJ's lack of "real" relationship with women as evidence that he was into boys. Zonen repeatedly tried to prove that MJ was not attracted to women why do you think he was doing it? It's obvious.

    You really should read the Lanning profile and remember that Lanning was on Sneddon's witness list.
    According to that profile serial boy molesters have limited peer relationships and have no continuing sexual interest in females let alone secret romances. I wouldn't be surprised if Clemente has also tried to use this against MJ.


    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    If two marriages didn't convince the haters that Michael had no sexual interest in children, this sure as hell won't.
    Haters won't be convinced by anything but their target audence, the general public could be.
    Romance and marriage are not the same! Sandusky was married so what? He was still into boys.
    Unfortunately, in MJ's case the marriage to Lisa is actually used against him because it was short lived and "curiously" timed.
    Debbie was a de facto surrogate mother and never really a wife and few people think otherwise.
    Zonen in one of his interviews declared that both of his marriages were shams. He was so desperate to prove
    that MJ didn't have sex with Lisa that he referred to ex-employees in Neverland like they had inside knowledge of
    Lisa's and MJ's relationship, nevermind that MJ didn't even live in California let alone Neverland between 1993-1997.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
    Not to mention it's a flawed argument to begin with and I hope you're not actually using this in discussions with haters.
    I'm not using it because I don't know whether Shana is telling the truth or not, as I made that very clear.
    I want more info. But if it's true haters would lose one of their favorite arguments and Robson and Safechuck would look ridiculous trying to argue that they were on MJ's mind and he was crazy in love with them while simultaneously having a romance with Shana.
    Talk about absurd.

  21. #45
    Points: 64,872, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    HIStory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Points
    64,872
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,489
    Thanked 35,107 Times in 9,070 Posts

    Default Re: Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post

    Yes I can and I did and now you are flat out lying.
    Oh yes, I forgot once you discussed the Estate for a short while. But 99% it's the allegations. BTW, you are not someone to call others a liar here. You have had about 2-3 different accouts here and lied about it when called out. And with all your accounts here your obsession have always been the allegations.

    You repeat yourself and sound hysterical when you could have simply answered my question with a yes or no:

    You take issues with me repeating this statement and I am the "hysterical" one? LOL, okay.

    If she provides proof that changes my mind about her story then I will change my mind. I have no dog in this fight while you obviously do. The burden of proof is on her, no matter how you try to twist it. That's where it ends to me.
    I repeat myself because that's my simple stance. I have no obligation to believe her until she provides evidence, no matter how many long rants you write about how necessary she is to defend MJ against the allegations. Until she provides evidence all that is pretty much a moot point.

    As for your question about Melissa: I answered it. But it seems to me that you made up your mind that Melissa is Shana because you are just not satisfied with my answer which was simply this:

    The woman on the tapes is called Melissa, not Shana. That's what I think about it. You may think MJ used a code name for her or something but that again is just speculation. There is no evidence the Melissa of the Glenda tapes is Shana.
    I didn't even say Melissa cannot be Shana by any means, I just said at this point we have no evidence it is her and this is a speculation. That's all I said. Not that it is definitely not her. But you obviously want me to embrace the Melissa=Shana idea right now because you keep pushing me about it further. It's alright with me if you think Melissa is Shana, or if any female name ever mentioned in connection with MJ is now Shana in your book - that's your opinion and maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. All I say is that I need more evidence to say Melissa is Shana but you are trying to push me to say something that I cannot honestly say at this point. I can only honestly say now what I already did: that without evidence all you do is speculate.

    If you believe that Melissa is Shana that's fine with me. I am not here to convince you otherwise. Maybe you will be proven right too. But it's just a speculation so far. You are the one trying to millitantly convince others about Shana and not being able to admit that until there is actual evidence of anything it's a matter of opinion and speculation and people who think she is not telling the truth have every right to think so about these unproven claims and they are not the ones who have to prove anything. It's Shana. Because no, the burden of proof doesn't shift on people who don't believe her for not believing her. That's an absurd idea. It's her story, it's her claims - the burden of proof is still on her, no matter how people react to her, whether it is mocking her, calling her delusional or a liar. That doesn't change who has the burden of proof. That you think it does shows you don't grasp simple, basic rules of how an argument works.

    If they wanted to keep it secret then yes it's possible they were never in a situation together
    where someone could have taken a revealing photo. That's the whole point of a SECRET relationship, don't you think?
    Anyway, I was talking about the type of photos which would indicate a romantic relationship.
    I don't think photos showing them in the same room or walking side by side somewhere would prove anything.
    At the same time her not having any "romantic" photos in and of itself would not prove she is lying, either.
    She just should give a reasonable explanation why she has no more than one photo with him,
    which so far she has not.
    Photos are not the only way to prove a relationship. It can be notes, poems, letters. Which are bound to happen between lovers. Especially when it comes to MJ who seemed to write notes and letters to people all the time. Just show us something that is more intimate than "I want you to appear in Ghosts".

    The Lisa Marie analogue is a bad one. First of all we DO have a note from MJ to Lisa that has an intimate tone. We don't have any such thing from Shana as of now. Maybe we will but for now we don't. Lisa didn't release notes but she is not someone who has to prove anything. She was publicly claimed by MJ, she was married to MJ.

    Shana, however, is yet to prove her relationship with MJ. She is just about to release a book about her supposed relationship with MJ, so she is not being private about it or keeping it a secret. If she had something, anything substantial to back up her claims I am pretty sure she would. Maybe she will. But so far she hasn't. All she provided so far rather suggests a distant, working relationship.
    Last edited by HIStory; 23-05-2016 at 05:31 AM.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to HIStory For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •