Latest on MJJC

The Hoax Theory - Discussing Errors, Inconsistencies, Observations and Other Theories

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
We know why, he's their scapegoat. Ever since he bought the Beatles they've resented him. And if he was still around, exerting any control, he'd absolutely have Robson and Safechuck in line.
Click to expand...
Just curious..did you become an avid fan as you are, after June 25, 2009?
 
Avid, maybe, but I've been listening to him since early childhood. I was only as old as his daughter when he passed.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
We know why, he's their scapegoat. Ever since he bought the Beatles they've resented him. And if he was still around, exerting any control, he'd absolutely have Robson and Safechuck in line.
Click to expand...

How? He's 'dead'. He needs his lawyers to take care of it. But again, think different. WHY do they resent him? You really think buying a catalogue is the sole reason?
 
Hamburglar said:
How? He's 'dead'. He needs his lawyers to take care of it. But again, think different. WHY do they resent him? You really think buying a catalogue is the sole reason?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. So does anybody with basic sense. Ever listen to "Money"? That's truly what the world's all about.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Yes, I do. So does anybody with basic sense. Ever listen to "Money"? That's truly what the world's all about.
Click to expand...

So Beyonce and Jay Z are extremely wealthy, for what is known publicly much richer than Michael supposedly was. Why aren't they resented? Quite the contrary, they are celebrated and idolized. What is the difference?
 
Hamburglar said:
So Beyonce and Jay Z are extremely wealthy, for what is known publicly much richer than Michael supposedly was. Why aren't they resented? Quite the contrary, they are celebrated and idolized. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
Maybe they have support from people Michael couldn't get along with.
I haven't done much research on this topic and I had a moment where I believed it was staged, but it passed quickly. I was dissuaded by the autopsy report and the fact that he wasn't in his children's lives, which is what the crisis that Paris was going through shows. I can't imagine that he would have stayed alive and let Paris go through what she went through.
 
Hamburglar said:
So Beyonce and Jay Z are extremely wealthy, for what is known publicly much richer than Michael supposedly was. Why aren't they resented? Quite the contrary, they are celebrated and idolized. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
They don't own any stakes in catalogues do they? There's also 20 years difference.

Beyonce is definitely an industry favorite with all their fluff pieces on her being the new King of Pop, I can't even believe you'd legitimately say her name in comparison to Michael. She's straight up had connections and favors, that's the difference.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
They don't own any stakes in catalogues do they? There's also 20 years difference.

Beyonce is definitely an industry favorite with all their fluff pieces on her being the new King of Pop, I can't even believe you'd legitimately say her name in comparison to Michael. She's straight up had connections and favors, that's the difference.
Click to expand...

I would never compare her with Michael, I think the Carters are the Kardashians of the music industry, famous and rich without any talent.

I am merely asking you why you believe the sole purpose (according to you) that Michael was resented was the catalogue. The catalogue gave him power and riches you mean, no? And power and riches is what the Carters have too, yet they are treated like gods. That should tell you there is way more than just his catalogue that made him a threat. The catalogue made him powerful and rich, of course, but would not have given him any problems as long as he kept playing the game. But he didn't, and that combination made him a HUGE threat. The Carters are good little puppets, so they are celebrated.
 
Hamburglar said:
The catalogue gave him power and riches you mean, no?
Click to expand...
And enmity with Paul McCartney. Who is basically celebrated as one of the four figureheads of the music in most people's circle. The Beatles are heralded as the greatest figures of music, remember? In general, Michael as a black figure, "owning" the greatest white talent the world has ever seen, that absolutely infuriated, specifically the British press. That started the utter smear campaign almost immediately, as bad if not worse than Princess Diana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoS
I thought Paul's beef with Michael wasn't that he owned the songs but that he gave permission for the songs to be used in adverts which The Beatles had always said they would never do. Quite a common idea for many of those 60's / 70's bands.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I thought Paul's beef with Michael wasn't that he owned the songs but that he gave permission for the songs to be used in adverts which The Beatles had always said they would never do. Quite a common idea for many of those 60's / 70's bands.
Click to expand...
Well that was the Crux of it. But in truth, he had been, hurt by Michael seemingly deciding to buy it even despite not actually having a real interest apparently. That's what he's said at least once. And they've asked him about it multiple times, because of course they would.

Anyway, he's pretty much fine now. He's over it. It's all worked out for him.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Well that was the Crux of it. But in truth, he had been, hurt by Michael seemingly deciding to buy it even despite not actually having a real interest apparently.
Click to expand...
That's a weird take. I've never come across that version of the story before. I find it hard to believe Michael had no real interest in the catalogue. He already owned some music, afaik. And the catalogue didn't just include Beatles stuff, there was loads of other stuff in there, also.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
That's what he's said at least once. And they've asked him about it multiple times, because of course they would.

Anyway, he's pretty much fine now. He's over it. It's all worked out for him.
Click to expand...
Well, he has the rights to the music now so he gets to decide if and when his songs get used commercially. Can't say I blame him for being a bit peeved with Michael. 'Revolution' doesn't belong in an advert.
 
zinniabooklover said:
That's a weird take. I've never come across that version of the story before.
Click to expand...
Understandably, McCartney was shocked and outraged by the insidious manoeuvring of MJ. He opined, “I think it’s dodgy to do something like that.” He concluded that it was like, “To be someone’s friend, and then buy the rug they’re standing on.”

McCartney finally got back what was truly his, and luckily for him, his unbelievably dated work with Jackson has been tossed into the paper shredder of memory.

faroutmagazine.co.uk

How Michael Jackson betrayed Paul McCartney and the Beatles

Today August 14th marks the anniversary of the greatest betrayal in music. The day in 1985 that Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles back catalogue.
faroutmagazine.co.uk faroutmagazine.co.uk
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Understandably, McCartney was shocked and outraged by the insidious manoeuvring of MJ. He opined, “I think it’s dodgy to do something like that.” He concluded that it was like, “To be someone’s friend, and then buy the rug they’re standing on.”

McCartney finally got back what was truly his, and luckily for him, his unbelievably dated work with Jackson has been tossed into the paper shredder of memory.

faroutmagazine.co.uk

How Michael Jackson betrayed Paul McCartney and the Beatles

Today August 14th marks the anniversary of the greatest betrayal in music. The day in 1985 that Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles back catalogue.
faroutmagazine.co.uk faroutmagazine.co.uk
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've seen that article before. I think this is a despicable write-up, quite frankly. I don't buy it at all, it is such a pile of crap. Most of the articles about this that I've seen push this version of the story.

But, anyway, it was this bit you wrote that confused me:

" ...hurt by Michael seemingly deciding to buy it even despite not actually having a real interest apparently."

Couldn't see anything in that article about Michael not having any real interest in the catalogue. That's the bit I was calling weird.
 
zinniabooklover said:
Couldn't see anything in that article about Michael not having any real interest in the catalogue. That's the bit I was calling weird.
Click to expand...
Well, I may have downplayed it. Branca definitely was eyeing it. MJ highly valued the catalogue and of course loved the songs but I don't think he cared either of. Am I wrong?
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Well, I may have downplayed it. Branca definitely was eyeing it. MJ highly valued the catalogue and of course loved the songs but I don't think he cared either of. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Reportedly when Paul gave MJ the advise to “get into publishing” Mj responded something to the effect of, “Thanks for the advice…I’m gonna buy the Beetles” which was for sale and Paul couldn’t outbid MJ, who reportedly said (in response to criticisms), “I just did good business”
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Because it pops up on the feed...
Anyway, like I said. I've been researching this stuff, admittedly a while. I had a phase. How long have you been researching this?
Click to expand...
From day 1 as I was already on here (MJJC) at the time it was unfolding in real-time and there was a LOT of different analyzing going on by all users.

At first I tried making sense of the “murder plot” which made les and less sense. My focus was on the NOI security detail, the missing surveillance footage, the police report and other stuff

Then I tried to analyze a kidnapping plot which made a teenie bit more sense.

Then I analyzed the possibility of witness protection which would require a public memorial service

Then I was told by many to consider it an elaborate production…

My whole m.o. has been to look at it from every plausible angle.

Edit: I should say it has been widely believed in the past that a public funeral was a part of it but it seems they really just randomly disappear so not sure about how witness protection programs work
 
Last edited:
I used to believe Michael was alive but a lot of it was the doubt process that comes with grief itself. I wanted my idol and inspiration to still be here - because I wouldn't have blamed him if he were to do such a thing. But that faded with time - though, sometimes, I still have my clownery moments.
 
alexisjackson624 said:
I used to believe Michael was alive but a lot of it was the doubt process that comes with grief itself. I wanted my idol and inspiration to still be here - because I wouldn't have blamed him if he were to do such a thing. But that faded with time - though, sometimes, I still have my clownery moments.
Click to expand...
Nothing clownery about it, there is plenty of evidence that he hoaxed his death. Much more than him being dead.
 
It almost seems like a sort of a “test” to see who’s paying attention to details vs what they see “on a tv screen” or “read in a magazine”.

Or who’s going to completely ignore all hard evidence to the contrary..

Or something of the sort.
 
Last edited:
The lack of a decisive stance on what it means, mixed with lack of Hard, evidence, both are points against the hoax.
 
Curious, for those who believe this death hoax. Do you believe that Michael tricked his family and made them go through the grief of losing a son/father/brother/uncle, or they are all "in on it?"
 
KOPV said:
Curious, for those who believe this death hoax. Do you believe that Michael tricked his family and made them go through the grief of losing a son/father/brother/uncle, or they are all "in on it?"
Click to expand...
I always saw people say they were in on it. And if I was to go for this, I'd say that too. Why wouldn't you tell them?

But then, why let so many people with your open secret also has a public face?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top