bumper you know very well that I stopped discussing authenticity a long long time ago. I have no desire to do so. What annoys me is when people misrepresent facts (such as copyright rules) to make baseless claims (such as conveniently withholding the performer when it's impossible to have a performer in a no performer registration) and present their speculation and/or rumors as facts (the $12 M versus $5 Million).
I think that by this point everyone knows that we're giving opinions as we don't have sufficient info to claim anything as a 100% fact. This goes larger than simply what those registrations contain. Michael Jackson is credited on something that has been registered by Eddie Cascio, but that is failed to be shown as a fact. That is the core problem. How do you know for a fact that MJ participated at all in any of the 12 songs, yet Eddie had to register them. The onus is on him to show it to the public, not on us who don't possess any of the elements except our opinion with which we can only speculate and question such practices.
If you want anyone to take you seriously your theories need to be realistic and factually correct, the minute you start something saying "ooo they conveniently withheld the performer" to the other side you seem to be obsessed and crazy to to point of creating conspiracy when there's none.
And how seriously can one take as granted the official theory according to which it's MJ singing, but which fails to show a single corroborating evidence?
and I hope any of the legal attempts that Stella keep mentioning is not based on these assumptions and/or hearsay.
If anything legal is involved I suppose that the lawyers know their job better than us.
what you fail to understand is that I don't believe either forensics. I clearly explained a million times my belief is based on my hearing and not on any statement or any expert.
What I actually fail to understand is how on Earth you can hear the same voice between the Cascio singer and MJ, and not a single ressemblance with JM's voice despite all the comparison clips that have been posted for this latter and not a single for MJ. I can understand that at times one can hear MJ in those songs because they as a matter of fact are misleading, but saying that they completely and unambiguously sound MJ is something I indeed fail to understand.
what I have been arguing over and over in regards to Estate/Sony experts is that they highly probably exist and analysis is probably done.
Where is their report then? Why keeping it sealed?
I'm basing this opinion on the fact that
1) due diligence requires them to do such an analysis if ever in the future the songs turn out to be fake other wise they'll be facing major problems
Of course they'll do it to cover themselves. They'd do the max to cover themselves and the minimum to publicly communicate anything that could be compromising for them.
2) lying on official statements is also further problematic. It's illogical to think that executors who get 5% each from a billion dollar Estate would lie over fake songs to the fans. (Remember it was a voluntary statement sent out to the fans, they could simply not respond and not mention any expert / test , they didn't have to lie)
We don't know who actually lied. Eddie or SONY/Estate. We don't know what the report says. We don't know what is the error margin. We don't know a single thing. There are things that don't need to be called necessarily "lies" but just unfortunate errors of interpretation. That way their conscious is clear.
Also, with that kind of logic, then people would never question anything and they'd easily get manipulated by the official statements which aim, first of all, to remove the slightest responsibility from the ones who created the mess.
3) other side - Randy Jackson - also confirmed that the analysis is done.
Yet we still have no details, no info whatsoever. No matter who claims what.
you also totally missed the point on the Elvis expert. My point was that you who adamantly argued that forensic experts can be wrong and the tests are more than satisfactory was so quick to accept the Elvis Expert's analysis because his identity was known.
Now quote a single post of mine where I actually said that that forensic was right. I have never ever expressed my opinion on that forensic. I just pointed out how a forensic analysed the tracks and how he wasn't afraid to publicly show his analysis, to give his identity and to inform the public that he even compared the voice with the soundalikes. And yet you immediately jumped to "debunk" his analysis, yet you don't know the identity of the forensics hired by the Estate/SONY.
You totally ignored his credentials and the fact that Elvis Estate had denied the claims. I was simply pointing out your double standard and not making any authenticity claim in regards to Elvis song.
Credentials? Double standard? I am sorry, but the one with double standard claims is you. I've never said whether the Elvis forensic was right or wrong. I just showed it as an example to compare it to the Cascio situation.
So, first of all you know not a single thing about the identity or credentials of the Estate's/Sony's forensics credentials (what if it was the same guy? what would you say then?), yet you don't question their authenticty analysis (which we still haven't seen by the way and you still find it logical not to see it apparently).
Second, I love Elvis Presley, but I am not a fan. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know Elvis's voice as much as his fans. I would be unable to say whether those songs were actually recorded by Elvis or not and I never claimed I supported that forensic's opinion. I simply don't know. So there is no double standard. However, I know MJ's voice enough to voice my opinion and tell that there is something terribly wrong with that voice on the Cascio tracks and that all the lack of info and evidence leads me to believe that they do have things to either hide, cover or even skillfully lie about.
A question so if tomorrow Estate says the analyst was from "John Doe from FBI and these are the methods he used" would you believe it? If not why are acting like this is all about the name of the expert?
I can ask you the same question. What if the Estate tomorrow tells you that the forensic they hired was the same as the one who analysed Elvis's songs? Would you change your mind because of his credentials? Or would you suddenly claim that indeed those songs are sung by Elvis only because the Estate hired the same guy and only because you believe to hear MJ on the Cascio songs?
