Asking ourselves tough questions.

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
How many times do I have to say it?

Report a post if you think it is offensive.

Me and Mikky are not omniscient and omnipresent. And
MODERATORS DO NOT DECIDE WHAT IS PERMITTED ON MJJC.

JCO8's post has been removed. I will bring it to Gaz's attention.

Don't remove please. he is being exposed as a hater. He is using the same arguments haters use. A 15 years old active fan, irrespective of how much doubts he has, would know better than to say Janet Arviso went to Larry Feldman for anything but money on her mind.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
Don't remove please. he is being exposed as a hater. He is using the same arguments haters use. A 15 years old active fan, irrespective of how much doubts he has, would know better than to say Janet Arviso went to Larry Feldman for anything but money on her mind.
Deleted posts are still visible to staff.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
@new members, when MJ was accused the second time in 2003, the first thing that came to my mind was he must have done it because no way he would have been accused twice if he did not do it. One week later, the child protection services leaked to the media their investigation of the family which forced Sneddon eventually to switch the time line. I then decided to give MJ a second chance and follow the case. The lows Sneddon sank to to convict MJ were what convinced me he was innocent. The willingness to lie, to manipulate, to mislead on the prosecution side was what convinced me they were far from interested in the truth. They had served more than 110 search warrants, spent millions of dollars, had the media back them every chance they could, but still could not put on the stand one single credible witness. EACH WITNESS WAS PAID , literally each witness had an axe to grind. If MJ was the paedophile they claim he was, they would have definitely been able to produce a credible evidence. But ZERO.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
The big deal is that, contrary to what most of MJ supporters claim, it's impossible to say that all the accusers were after is money.



Of course I'm not. I spent my life finding alternative explanations to tolerate Michael's odd behaviour with children. And it worked because I wanted to believe he was innocent. But as the list of accusers grows up, there's a time when you want to stop that gymnastic and face things with a more open mind. That's what I did. This documentary made me look into informations I had no clue existed publicly - and some I didn't want to look before. It's all very clear now. And I'm telling you, all that gymnastic that made me think the whole world was bad and MJ was good, was not sane at all.



Yes, I totally agree, and he knew that, as I said. This was his power. That's why their relationship was so insane. As a responsible and innocent adult, he would have never allowed such people in his life. If he did, it's only because he had his own interest in it. He was desperate to be surrounded by normal people. To have that sense of normalcy which he was deprived of. He did distance himself from them eventually because their real collars showed and that's were all the resentment came from. Literally all of them are screaming about the way he cut them off his life.



Once again, yes. And Michael encouraged this dependency they had on him by giving them access to his magical world, offering them presents and money, and... just honoring them with his presence. This insane relationship is the key that made the abuse possible. That was him being him. Even as a child he used to buy other kids stuff whenever Joe gave him his allowance. He acted that way with everyone. Dr Alan Metzeger once said he came to ask him to help a child with a skin disease. He disappeared and came back with more than a hundred thousand dollar and handed it to him. He never met the child nor knew who he was. That was him.



Why not in both ways ? It's always black or white, is it ? Yes, it's a black or white situation. "His the most caring individual in the wold but he raped me" does not make any sense to me, but Wade could not sell his story if he claimed otherwise.



I'm not. But what if I was ? How would it change the meaning of what I say ? You guys really need ennemies to fight, do you ? Your life has become an everyday fight against the entire world. This is so sad...
You wish.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Thank you for that definition. I've read that word so many times here that I was afraid of being one. I feel relieved now.

The other way around, if a fan is consumed by hate to a degree where he lies and misrepresents facts to convince others of MJ's innocence, can he also be considered a hater ?

Dickerman referring the Arvizos to Larry Feldman for any other reason but money was a lie by you.
Arvizos not interested in MJ's money was a big fat lie by you.
Jason Francia not being interested in MJ's money was a lie by you.
citing trauma as the reason why safe chuck claimed abuse in the non-existing train station was a lie by you.
all your excuses for Safechuck provable lie about the train station are provable lies.
It's a lie to claim that most of the nudities found was boys. You know that's a provable lie.

You are a liar given how much you lied in one post. You don't have to resort to lying if the truth is on your side.

You have lost the battle when you did not address my questions. Why Francia had the keys to the cabinet in which the only incriminating evidence was found two years after her employment was terminated? Why was she called that day by the police to open that cabinet although a locker smith was with the police that day and he did not hesitate to use his skills to access everything else in Neverland except that cabinet?
 

Gaz

Owner And Founder
Staff member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
1,175
Points
63
Location
London
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}JCO8 has now been removed from this community.

When I said the moderators are haters apologists. I'm not wrong.
Bye bye MJJC.
Thanks JC08 for letting me know about the REAL MJJC

1nn5 you say this one more time and you will be next...
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,016
Points
83
General statement, I know there are rude comments and people that simply should be kicked out.. just try to understand that the MJJC mods cannot possibly read through everything in real time..

How many threads are active? How fast do people respond to each other? Now devide that put to a few people to "mod"..

Maybe consider becoming a mod to help if you find their to be an issue.. if you dont want to, keep the reasoning in the back of your mind, and that's what they deal with.

Were here for positivity, when you see hate.. let em know! That's it
 

Laurendaccio

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
110
Points
0
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}JCO8 has now been removed from this community.
1nn5 you say this one more time and you will be next...

EDIT :
@JCO8 has been removed ? If true thank you very much .
 

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
For those who can't believe why and how would someone lie to this extent, here's a story in brief of Tania Head who faked being a 9/11 survivor for years (thanks to TSCM):

https://twitter.com/MJJRepository/status/1123410705938567168
THREAD: The parallels between Wade Robson and Tania Head, who faked her way to the top ranks in 9/11 survivor groups and spent years mascaraing as a direct survivor of the terrorist attacks.

Tania was interviewed at-length by a crew long before she was revealed a fraud. She described in graphic & sensory-vivid detail of the attack and how she survived.

The director later said: "I had NO IDEA she was anything but an authentic survivor--almost all of us believed her."

A few survivors began having suspicions but due to Tonia's power+influence over fellow survivors & the taboo nature of doubting such stories, they didn't want to raise these concerns publicly.

After the story was published, Tania Head was finally, for the first time, publicly outed as a fraud.

"A story of tragedy and heroism, survival and love...this story repeated many times in the past six years may be a complete fabrication."

"If Tonia can lie, anybody can lie."

The 9/11 survivors confided in a false victim to guide them in their healing. The aftermath of learning she was a fraud was profound & devastating.

"There's nothing that she could ever say to me today that will ever change the pain, anger, hatred.. What she did to the families."

"She probably did her research on us. She was probably just watching us and trying to see what we were talking about & how we felt. She adopted the personality. She knew how survivors felt after going through something like that & she became one of us." -9/11 Survivor on Tonia.

It took 6 years for a media outlet to start to actually fact check her story. No one researched her before, just accepted her story at a face value - it was also a sensitive subject no one would assume someone would lie about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/nyregion/27survivor.html
Much of Ms. Head’s account was posted on the Web site of the World Trade Center Survivors’ Network, a nonprofit organization for which she served as president and as point person for corporate donations.

But no part of her story, it turns out, has been verified.

The family and friends of the man to whom she claimed to be engaged say they have never heard of Tania Head and view the relationship she describes with the man, who truly died in the north tower, as an impossibility.

A spokeswoman for Merrill Lynch & Company, where she told people she worked at the time of the terror attack, said the company had no record of employing a Tania Head.

And few people, it seems, who embraced the gripping immediacy and pain of her account ever asked the name of the man whose ring she had returned, or that of the hospital where she was treated, or the identities of the people she met with in the south tower on the morning of 9/11.

TMK she was never held accountable for what she had done. Which is strange, considering you can get into trouble for let's say forging a transit pass.
 
Last edited:

StageGlitter

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
265
Points
0
So your mission now is to stay part of the 'family' enlightening other fans about the monster that he was so everyone could now understand the grooming we have all been subjected to all those years to begin to heal with each other speaking about our experiences with this monster.

Mods can you please invite Wade and Safechuck to join this community (assuming they are not already members here) and give them a platform to speak about their abuse to open the eyes of those fans who are still blinded by Jackson's fame. We desperately need them please to heal. Can we please ban Jackson music also? It would be great frankly.

How woke it would be of our Mods to change the banner of this site to MJ Victims Community. That would make JCO8 very proud of the family and we would finally get our revenge from Michael Jackson for cheating and abusing us all those years similar to the way Wade and Safechuck got their revenge for him not supporting their film careers. Can we also dig Michael's corpse that would feel nice let's also discuss how he may have very likely raped his sons. That would also make sense. The possibilities are endless let's start the healing process now please.

For every victim we need to dedicate a whole section to redeem them and show them support. A whole section for the hero Thomas Sneddon and one for Evan please he deserves one. Dimond also deserve her own section for her relentless work to expose the monster who cheated and abused us. Can we also dedicate sections for Mac and Brett? I know they have not come forward yet but we all know they were victims and even if they were not who cares Jackson deserve to be accused even if he did not abuse because he was such a freak.

The sarcasm is uncalled for and it's insensitive concerning the theme of the thread.
 

Elton-Cetera

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
465
Points
18
Arvizo claimed the abuse started after the Martin Bashir interview. That's fishy to me! So no, Michael Jackson never abused any child. What if that Bashir interview never happened? There would not have been a trial and Michael Jackson would still be alive today, but that would also probably mean the Arvizos would still have been at Neverland, unless Jackson kicked them out. I don't know how much blame to put on Bashir because it was Uri Geller, a friend of Jackson, who arranged the interview with Bashir. It's really sad that Jackson's children lost their birth home the way they did.

From wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bashir

Michael Jackson interviews

In 2003, Bashir conducted a series of interviews with pop singer Michael Jackson, as part of an ITV documentary Living with Michael Jackson, which Uri Geller, a friend of Jackson's, had arranged. Following the broadcast, which was viewed by 14 million in the UK and 38 million in the US, Jackson complained to the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, accusing Bashir of yellow journalism. In response, Jackson and his personal cameraman released a rebuttal interview, which showed Bashir complimenting Jackson for the "spiritual" quality of the Neverland Ranch.

Bashir defended the documentary, stating, "I don't believe that I've betrayed Michael Jackson at all. I agreed that we would make an honest film about his life. The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself. I'm not accusing anybody of being a child molester or a paedophile."

After Jackson's death in 2009, Dieter Wiesner, the pop star's manager from 1996 to 2003, said of Bashir's documentary:

“ It broke [Jackson]. It killed him. He took a long time to die, but it started that night. Previously the drugs were a crutch, but after that they became a necessity. ”

Bashir later said during ABC's coverage of Jackson's death:

“ I think all of us were shocked and deeply saddened by the news today. I was actually out running in Central Park when I heard and came home, showered and came into the office. Many of us were excited about the prospect of him performing in London, thousands of people had bought tickets from all over the world and now to hear this news is very, very sad. I think it's worth remembering he was probably, singly, the greatest dancer and musician the world has ever seen. Certainly, when I made the documentary, there was a small part of that which contained a controversy concerning his relationship with other young people. But the truth is that he was never convicted of any crime, I never saw any wrongdoing myself and whilst his lifestyle may have been a bit unorthodox, I don't believe it was criminal and I think the world has now lost the greatest entertainer it's probably ever known.


 
Last edited:

Elton-Cetera

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
465
Points
18
Do you really think Michael Jackson was a gentle child molester who told children that he and them would all go to jail if they ever told anyone what they were doing? Michael Jackson would have had to have been walking on egg shells everyday of his life since 1987, worried that one of these kids might someday turn on him and tell their parents, and then the authorities. To me, Michael Jackson showed no signs of that.

Do you really think Michael Jackson would harm a child, and not care what all the people he ever worked with at Motown, USA for Africa, and all of Hollywood would think of him if they found out?

Adolf Hitler was a bad man. They still teach about Hitler in high school and college history classes.

No, I would not stop listening to Michael Jackson if it turned out he harmed a child. I would keep listening to his music, but I would cry in disappointment at the same time.

If Michael Jackson did harm a child, I think many people, because Michael Jackson was a child star, always in the public eye, would look back at pictures and videos of him from his time with the Jackson 5, and wonder how could this have happened, but give him a pass because it's not his fault.

But let's just say there had never been a Jackson 5, and Michael Jackson was never a child star, and his first album was Off The Wall as an adult, and then 12 years later allegations of harming children come out against him, and they turned out to be true. Would I then stop being a fan and stop listening to his music? Maybe? I don't know.

Do you really think Michael Jackson would want to disappoint and disgust Brooke Shields?
__________________________________________________

Does anyone know how the 1993 Oprah Winfrey interview with Michael Jackson came about? Was it Oprah's idea, or was it the Jackson camp's idea?

How do you respond to the following?

Comments on youtube under the Dan Reed Emmy win video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nab9u4cDf6A
 
Last edited:

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Does anyone know how the 1993 Oprah Winfrey interview with Michael Jackson came about? Was it Oprah's idea, or was it the Jackson camp's idea?

How do you respond to the following?

Comments on youtube under the Dan Reed Emmy win video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nab9u4cDf6A

It's very easy for anyone to make any accusations about Michael. The only way to refute them is to read and understand each case thoroughly, using all the resources made available on the internet. Many people have spent many years writing about these cases, and making informative videos about them.

Maybe start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRZ9fr35Vuc


Maybe also wait for the 'Square One' video which will apparently include more information, and which should be available from approx October 5th.
 

Frankyboy5

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,373
Points
38
The situation has only greatened my disdain for the those who keep sticking with irrational disproved points when engaging in debate. Simply blurting out MJ Innocent will not solve the problem. Tying some false equivalence (I've seen an increase in criticizing David Bowie and Elvis Presley in particular) or alleging some conspiracy or political political slant only makes it worse.

- Jordie Chandler didn't recant, and Evan Chandler's "extortion" phone call could be interpreted otherwise. The first time I heard I thought it was a father reacting to possible abuse of his child rather than an extortion attempt and that is what the police thought. It was when he said "that's irrelevant" I leaned towards possible alterior motives.
- Those who went after Aphrodite Jones for having some reservations about June Chandler.
- Some are just telling pxeople to watch/read Charles Thomson, Danny Wu, and Razorfist. Many of them make strong arguments but none of them are perfect.

Overall my opinion has not wavered, but the questions and doubts I have are mostly about Jackson's pacifist image and originality of his art. Fans are quick to write off things as "tabloid" like will.i.am saying he belittled Prince or Paul Anka saying the same about Donny Osmond. There's also the idea he was in some ways a shrewd businessman. Though I take most things from Quincy Jones with a grain of salt, I think there's some truth to his "borrowing" of ideas from others, not unlike Edison or Steve Jobs' "inventions." Of course, nothing can degrade from the end product that was produced and its influence.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
The situation has only greatened my disdain for the those who keep sticking with irrational disproved points when engaging in debate. Simply blurting out MJ Innocent will not solve the problem. Tying some false equivalence (I've seen an increase in criticizing David Bowie and Elvis Presley in particular) or alleging some conspiracy or political political slant only makes it worse.

- Jordie Chandler didn't recant, and Evan Chandler's "extortion" phone call could be interpreted otherwise. The first time I heard I thought it was a father reacting to possible abuse of his child rather than an extortion attempt and that is what the police thought. It was when he said "that's irrelevant" I leaned towards possible alterior motives.
- Those who went after Aphrodite Jones for having some reservations about June Chandler.
- Some are just telling pxeople to watch/read Charles Thomson, Danny Wu, and Razorfist. Many of them make strong arguments but none of them are perfect.

Overall my opinion has not wavered, but the questions and doubts I have are mostly about Jackson's pacifist image and originality of his art. Fans are quick to write off things as "tabloid" like will.i.am saying he belittled Prince or Paul Anka saying the same about Donny Osmond. There's also the idea he was in some ways a shrewd businessman. Though I take most things from Quincy Jones with a grain of salt, I think there's some truth to his "borrowing" of ideas from others, not unlike Edison or Steve Jobs' "inventions." Of course, nothing can degrade from the end product that was produced and its influence.
As long as fans and people stick with the facts of MJ, that proves more of MJ's innocence. What gets me is when some folks want MJ to prove so much more than the accusers. BURDEN of PROOF lies more with the accusers than MJ; but even at that, Michael went beyond the call of duty to prove his innocence and as the defendant in the court of law. MJ can NOT prove a "negative". I can sit here and call everyone a child abuser including Elvis and David and now everyone wants them to prove they are not (I think the point about David and Elvis is about BIAS. Elvis was accused about Pricilla, David was accused YET these men did not get the MEDIA TREATMENT like MJ which bring up other issues of fairness, fact checking, race, etc). As for Evan, Evan sound like a liar to me the first time I heard the tape. On the tape, Evan says nothing about 'my son was abused'. Even when a parent goes into a rant on what they just THINK, they will still say it and call it out why they are ranting on their kid being abused even if it was just a THOUGHT. No, Evan was plotting a scheme (his tone, the words he used, etc was a person who was PLOTTING a scheme saying it without saying it). Even if Evan was a "money hungry" parent, Evan still could have got the criminal case (he could have got BOTH criminal and civil even still after the settlement. The settlement stops NOTHING if something happen. MJ side was pushing more for the criminal case to go first and MJ would have been the defendant. That says a lot who is innocent. Then Evan tried to sue MJ again after the Diane Sawyer interview 1995 and the statue of limitation was still available for do the criminal which Evan still did not do. And this still does not include the people who were PAID to LIE by tabloids. That is a fact. Even when June Chandler was subpoena to come to court in 2005, June NEVER said IN COURT OF LAW in front of a BIAS ANTI-MJ media which she could have said ANYTHING she wanted at that point, that "Michael abused my son". Even a male reporter on CNN called that out & even said she seem to help MJ with her testimony. yes, June knows she benefited from BLOOD MONEY from an innocent man- MJ). I agree with the "borrowing" of ideas from others. ALL MUSICANS do it to some degree (only so many notes on a horn, keyboard, drum, etc).
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,017
Points
63
*How is saying “Michael is Innocent” with court documents, facts and evidence not enough , when you have brain dead people who actually believe that Michael is guilty without a shred of evidence or proof and based on nothing except manipulation, innuendo and fake allegations? The evidence is geared toward the fact that Michael IS Innocent, much more than guilt. I have seen NOTHING that has ever been shown to point to guilt.

*How is it a false equivalency to compare these allegations to Bowie or Presley? Is it because you don’t want to compare these two men who are your favorites? Is it because you ACCEPT or don’t care about what Bowie and Presley did because the victims were female? The bottomline is that they were actually involved sexually with MINORS who were females. Presley was actually involved SEXUALLY with a 13-14 year old GIRL, Priscilla. I don’t know all details about Bowie, will have to do more research. No one is trying to make things up about these men, people are basically pointing out the HYPOCRISY of how these two white mens’ actions seem to be accepted and not vilified. It’s racist and sickening.

*When Evan Chandler first asked Jordan if Michael had abused him, Jordan looked at him and laughed. Let’s not forget that this only happened after Evan had asked Michael for money to finance his projects. Michael REFUSED. Strangely, the only OTHER person that I have ever heard say that the Evan Chandler recording sounded like a “concerned father” is Dieann Demond. Wow, how convenient and coinencedental for you to say the exact same thing!!Hmmm! FTR, no rational person would listen to that recording from Evan and think he was “concerned” father. What “concerned” father would say “if I go through with this I WIN BIG”. Nothing about wanting justice for his so-called “abused” son. Nothing about wanted to physically hurt his son’s so called “abuser”. David Schwartz, Jordan’s step-father was actually the one who secretly recorded this Evan Chandler rant. On the recording, David asks Chandler, “what about Jordan, don’t you care about him?” Chandler answers that he doesn’t care WHO GETS HURT.” Now tell me again if THAT sounds like a “concerned” father.

* You say fans tell people to listen to Charles Thomson, Danny Wu, Razorfist, etc. You say they have strong arguments but are not perfect. The bottomline is that their arguments are based on FACTS-court documents, evidence, timelines, etc. The haters and people involved in the scam have nothing except innuendo, rumors, manipulations, fake accusations, etc. These people have not presented any facts. Rational people go by REAL EVIDENCE, not graphic and fake scripts.

*I’m trying to figure out what your “questions and doubts” about Michael’s pacifist image and creativity has to do with anything. Are you saying that these things affect whether you are a fan or not? That is very strange. Do you do that with every artist that you listen to or just when it comes to Michael Jackson? Btw, describe what you mean by “pacifist” image. Are you speaking of Michael’s philanthropy, humanitarianism, goodness, kindness toward people? Explain YOUR definition of “pacifist image”.

* As for originality in Michael’s work, he is just as original as any other artist that you may listen to. He has ALWAYS acknowledged his studying other great artists an being influenced by them. How original was Elvis? How original was Sinatra? How original was Prince? and the list goes on and on. ALL artist “borrow” from other artists.I’m sure if we went back to the Classical era, we would find that Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. “borrowed” notes, chords, from other composers. What really bothers me and other MJ fans is the hypocrisy and DOUBLE STANDARDS that people like you perpetuate upon Michael. It’s really sad and disgusting.
 
Last edited:

Frankyboy5

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,373
Points
38
somewhereinthedark;4298660 said:
*How is saying “Michael is Innocent” with court documents, facts and evidence not enough , when you have brain dead people who actually believe that Michael is guilty without a shred of evidence or proof and based on nothing except manipulation, innuendo and fake allegations? The evidence is geared toward the fact that Michael IS Innocent, much more than guilt. I have seen NOTHING that has ever been shown to point to guilt.

*How is it a false equivalency to compare these allegations to Bowie or Presley? Is it because you don’t want to compare these two men who are your favorites? Is it because you ACCEPT or don’t care about what Bowie and Presley did because the victims were female? The bottomline is that they were actually involved sexually with MINORS who were females. Presley was actually involved SEXUALLY with a 13-14 year old GIRL, Priscilla. I don’t know all details about Bowie, will have to do more research. No one is trying to make things up about these men, people are basically pointing out the HYPOCRISY of how these two white mens’ actions seem to be accepted and not vilified. It’s racist and sickening.

*When Evan Chandler first asked Jordan if Michael had abused him, Jordan looked at him and laughed. Let’s not forget that this only happened after Evan had asked Michael for money to finance his projects. Michael REFUSED. Strangely, the only OTHER person that I have ever heard say that the Evan Chandler recording sounded like a “concerned father” is Dieann Demond. Wow, how convenient and coinencedental for you to say the exact same thing!!Hmmm! FTR, no rational person would listen to that recording from Evan and think he was “concerned” father. What “concerned” father would say “if I go through with this I WIN BIG”. Nothing about wanting justice for his so-called “abused” son. Nothing about wanted to physically hurt his son’s so called “abuser”. David Schwartz, Jordan’s step-father was actually the one who secretly recorded this Evan Chandler rant. On the recording, David asks Chandler, “what about Jordan, don’t you care about him?” Chandler answers that he doesn’t care WHO GETS HURT.” Now tell me again if THAT sounds like a “concerned” father.

* You say fans tell people to listen to Charles Thomson, Danny Wu, Razorfist, etc. You say they have strong arguments but are not perfect. The bottomline is that their arguments are based on FACTS-court documents, evidence, timelines, etc. The haters and people involved in the scam have nothing except innuendo, rumors, manipulations, fake accusations, etc. These people have not presented any facts. Rational people go by REAL EVIDENCE, not graphic and fake scripts.

*I’m trying to figure out what your “questions and doubts” about Michael’s pacifist image and creativity has to do with anything. Are you saying that these things affect whether you are a fan or not? That is very strange. Do you do that with every artist that you listen to or just when it comes to Michael Jackson? Btw, describe what you mean by “pacifist” image. Are you speaking of Michael’s philanthropy, humanitarianism, goodness, kindness toward people? Explain YOUR definition of “pacifist image”.

* As for originality in Michael’s work, he is just as original as any other artist that you may listen to. He has ALWAYS acknowledged his studying other great artists an being influenced by them. How original was Elvis? How original was Sinatra? How original was Prince? and the list goes on and on. ALL artist “borrow” from other artists.I’m sure if we went back to the Classical era, we would find that Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. “borrowed” notes, chords, from other composers. What really bothers me and other MJ fans is the hypocrisy and DOUBLE STANDARDS that people like you perpetuate upon Michael. It’s really sad and disgusting.

The point is I WANT fans to make the right arguments instead of trivial misconceptions that those subreddits and youknowwhatsite will immediately cherrypick and throw the curveballs, and we go nowhere. If an argument goes like "MJ was guilty" followed by someone responding "MJ was innocent" without mentioning anything factual, how does that help MJ's legacy? It just gives the image of fanaticism. I don't believe people in this forum are like this, but I've seen this situation happen too often everywhere else.

As for Evan Chandler, that is precisely the point I was looking for. As I said, he said it was irrelevant for Jordie that I questioned his motives, but to just quote him saying "I will win bigtime" or "this man won't sell another record" doesn't cut it.


The last half of my statement has nothing to do with the allegations. Maybe it was better to word it as "exploring" MJ's persona and influences on his art, rather than questioning it. "Study the greats and become greater", but I don't believe he was the naive, friendly image he made fans believe he was.

That is all I will say for now.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
Why is this thread still going on? michael was/is innocent. lol. you guys argue about anything. my goodness.
 

JichaelMackson

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
693
Points
0
What I'm going to say is not based on facts but if your son is allegedly raped by an adult male I wouldn't want the rapist to still run around freely , I would want him locked away, money becomes irrelevant to me. I believe this is the only natural reaction caring parents can have.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
What I'm going to say is not based on facts but if your son is allegedly raped by an adult male I wouldn't want the rapist to still run around freely , I would want him locked away, money becomes irrelevant to me. I believe this is the only natural reaction caring parents can have.

I agree with ya.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,017
Points
63
Frank seems to be using every excuse in order to give credence to these people with an AGENDA. Seriously, anyone who says that there is no agenda is either naive or just plain ignorant. One doesn’t have to be a MJ fan in order to see that the reason/agenda behind these fake allegations. I have been a fan for over 30 years and have researched these fake allegations over the years, NOT ONE TIME has anyone shown or presented any evidence that points to guilt. These people play on the stupidity of gullible and weak-minded people by spewing and regurgitating lies, rumors and innuendo. Not one time have I seen any court documents or any evidence to prove what that claim.

On the other hand, there are TONS of documents, timelines, depositions, witnesses, etc. that can PROVE that the handful of accusers are scam artists, extortionists, and flat out liars. It’s really simple, look at the EVIDENCE, not the things that have been manufactured and manipulated by people like Dieann Demond and her cohorts, who have been instigators, and conspirators since the 1993 scam. This is not speculation, this is FACT, with evidence to prove these peoples involvement in these scams for 30+ years. The bottomline is these people want to portray MJ supporters as naive and unaware. That is not true, because MJ fans are the most aware fans of any artist. WE HAVE TO BE because of all of the BS that Michael has gone through. We are lawyers, writers, educators, doctors, researchers, etc. We don’t sit on our asses and throw weak rhetoric around. We RESEARCH. We INVESTIGATE.

Finally, you really do need to do more research yourself. You seem to be waffling between REAL evidence and MANIPULATION from fake sites with an AGENDA.
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,017
Points
63
“...but I don't believe he was the naive, friendly image he made fans believe he was.”

Speak for yourself. Don’t try and speak for what YOU think other MJ fans believe. MOST Michael fans are AWARE enough to know that being kind, good-hearted and friendly does not equate to being “naive”. I admit that Michael was TOO TRUSTING. HE saw the good in people because he was good. That is the very reason that he trusted trash like Chandler’s, Arvizzos, Robson’s and Safechucks. I really think your statements say more about you than they do Michael. Look at the “man or woman” in the mirror before you assume to know or speak for MJ fans in total. I don’t know how long that you have been a fan, if you are one; however, you really need to realize that the MAJORITY of MJ fans are not easily manipulated by anyone or anything-pro or con. MJ fans are not like haters, we don’t just sit around and accept things at face value, or because the media regurgitates bull@#$& or because scam artists make false accusations. We OBSERVE, RESEARCH and INVESTIGATE.

Finally, I want to point out that defending Michael and not agreeing with rumors and manipulations does not mean that is “fanaticism”. I hear haters and even some so-called “objective” fans try and claim that a fan is fanatical only because he/she passionately defends MJ or rebuke the crap that is spewed. That type of rhetoric and assumption is not only stupid and ignorant, it is insulting to person’s intelligence. A person doesn’t have to be a fanatic, in order to speak from FACTS and EVIDENCE. I only brought up this topic because you seem to worry that haters call any MJ fan fanatical if they aggressively defend Michael. I say so what, who cares what a group of uninformed, brain-dead haters think! They are too lazy to do even the most basic research, therefore their opionion of MJ fans is irrelevant and null and void.
 
Last edited:

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,675
Points
48
I believe that most of us have at some point in our lives fallen flat on our face because we trusted someone too much. Doesn’t mean we’re all naive. Shit just happens sometimes.
 
Top