Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

aqwsz said:
3rd observation

For me Robson is more convincing than Safechuck
Their stories match but that could obviously be rehearsed
Whatever is being said of Michael (as a person) I believe, they describe him how he descries himself in interviews and how others describe him
Including the grandmother in interviews makes me uneasy in a negative way for Michael
Click to expand...
Of course they can describe him accurately, the knew him and spent a lot of time with him. Your 'obervations' are ludicrous. Please stop.
 
aqwsz said:
That's why it our my observations obviously. My nipples are completely insensitive...
MJ was a grown up kid, that's been stated numerous times by several sources
Kids can think about sex but they cannot possibly know what sex is. I knew masturbation a long time before I actually knew what it was.
Click to expand...

Your own experiences (and your own nipples) don't speak for everybody. You are demonstrating total ignorance on the entire subject matter.
 
AG5050 said:
Your own experiences (and your own nipples) don't speak for everybody. You are demonstrating total ignorance on the entire subject matter.
Click to expand...

but your experiences and nipples do?
 
AG5050 said:
Of course they can describe him accurately, the knew him and spent a lot of time with him. Your 'obervations' are ludicrous. Please stop.
Click to expand...
As if all my observations are negative... please stop your agenda towards me. I'm being 100% objective .
 
aqwsz said:
but your experiences and nipples do?
Click to expand...

No, im not using my own experiences to form an opinion. I am using what I know factually about child sex abuse and the psychology surrounding it. For example Jimmy being a straight man has absolutely zero relevance to anything that he is accusing Michael of. Obviously I don't believe him in this scenario but the points you are trying to make don't bear any relevance as you have no idea what you are talking about!

aqwsz said:
As if all my observations are negative... please stop your agenda towards me. I'm being 100% objective .
Click to expand...

I know they aren't all negative. I don't take issue with whether you think Michael is guilty or not. I take issue with people making ignorant points that bear no relevance to the subject matter. I don't have an agenda towards you, just the things you are saying. I would be typing the exact same response to anyone else on here making the 'observations' that you are. It's a discussion forum, if you don't want people to comment on what you have to say then you shouldn't post them on a public platform.
 
AG5050 said:
No, im not using my own experiences to form an opinion. I am using what I know factually about child sex abuse and the psychology surrounding it. For example a Jimmy being a straight man has absolutely zero relevance to anything that he is accusing Michael of. Obviously I don't believe him in this scenario but the points you are trying to make don't bear any relevance as you have no idea what you are talking about!
Click to expand...

Well I never claimed to know anything about child abuse did I...
I'm watching the film, making observations because I can't remember all during a 4 hour film that is quite boring so far might I say
So far I believe nothing of the abuse they are talking about btw
 
aqwsz said:
Well I never claimed to know anything about child abuse did I...
I'm watching the film, making observations because I can't remember all during a 4 hour film that is quite boring so far might I say
So far I believe nothing of the abuse they are talking about btw
Click to expand...

Well that is fair enough and comes across from what you are saying. Im not attacking you im only pointing things out because if you were to use these points to try and defend Michael it just hurts the cause to make an argument that shows a lack of understanding.
 
john13th said:
It means National Enquirer tried to bribe Ron Newt 200000 dollars for telling them Michael molested his kids. He refused as that was a big lie they had come up with. He helped Michael and Johnnie Cochran to file a civil lawsuit case against them and they won.
Click to expand...

I understand English, I mean what's the other meaning of the video.
 
AG5050 said:
Well that is fair enough and comes across from what you are saying. Im not attacking you im only pointing things out because if you were to use these points to try and defend Michael it just hurts the cause to make an argument that shows a lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

I read what you said again and I agree. My comments regarding Safechuck being straight don't make sense. I'm very sensible I can be argued with and if I'm mistaken I have no problem admitting that.
 
Having watched the full 4 hours of that documentary, I can honestly say I don't believe Michael was guilty. I also believe these men are liars, there stories aren't consistent, tonal shifts, their body language even the way they tell the story seems prompted or rehearsed. I don't know how anyone who knows the facts of the case can have any doubt in Michael's complete innocence.

I don't mean to dog them men just because I'm a fan of Mike, but they are not believable in the slightest. Having read the transcripts and available documents of both trials, their collective stories do not hold water, one part I noticed..

They both make strangely jealous remarks about Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin (both of whom state Michael was innocent) as if they were jealous both boys replaced safechuck and robson, but how are they not aware of each other? I mean according to them Michael molested (makes me sick just to type it) robson from like early 87 and safechuck mentions how it happened from around 86/87 and during the Bad tour European leg (Paris onwards I think) and not once do they mention how they overlapped or even saw one another. But they both felt replaced by Barnes and Culkin respectively. There's a huge inconsistency there

Telling you guys Dave Chappelle was right, this is the age of spin
 
In my area, I haven't noticed his music being played any less frequently than it was before, but I am glad to hear that other stations elsewhere are playing his music again. I heard Human Nature (my favorite song) today on the bus during my ride home.
 
I wore my Thriller t-shirt today and someone drove past playing Billie Jean at about 200 decibels. They haven't won and never will win.
 
john13th said:
Exactly yeah Anna, you are so right on this point. When we first heard about these Creditors claim and civil lawsuits we didn't buy it for a dime that they had credibility, reading through the contents of their claims. It was easy to see it through and was not convincing at all. And the contents in the documents are what is more or less recited in the film, with the music, camera angles, editing, seeing and hearing the accusers as you mentioned Anna. And suddenly it brings a whole new life of these contents, that will penetrate your feelings, thoughts, soul, psychic when you see everything in the film. It will shock you, move you and finally convince you as it tries you to build trust in them and sympathize them to a degree that you find credibility in them. Just because it has all the elements to touch your emotions through this film.
Click to expand...
That's why I feel no need to watch the documentary. It is 4 hours of pure manipulation that deliberately excludes anything and anyone that doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to push, which in itself makes the whole thing untrustworthy, let alone all the proven lies and inconsistencies we know about the accusers. The fact that so many people who aren't even fans can see through the BS of this whole thing says a lot.
 
Can someone please explain me how is that possible that they are allowed to use in this shit doc official stuff like MJ's music, Smooth Criminal, Thriller music video, Bad tour videos, MJ kids footage etc ?
 
I don't really understand why Reed cut in several minutes about the Robson's private life problems. Those things don't have anything to do with MJ, it feels those scenes are added because they provided the tears. I know the grandmother blames MJ for the separation but the mother clearly says there were already marital problems before Jackson supposedly meddled in their affairs
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
They both make strangely jealous remarks about Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin (both of whom state Michael was innocent) as if they were jealous both boys replaced safechuck and robson, but how are they not aware of each other? I mean according to them Michael molested (makes me sick just to type it) robson from like early 87 and safechuck mentions how it happened from around 86/87 and during the Bad tour European leg (Paris onwards I think) and not once do they mention how they overlapped or even saw one another. But they both felt replaced by Barnes and Culkin respectively. There's a huge inconsistency there
Click to expand...
Yeah it is a inconsistency and Dan Reed even said that Safechuck and Robson first started to know each other during the production of this horror film. But he is lying, they have known each other since 2013-14 at least with those civil lawsuit they filed and they are sharing the same lawyer.
 
Have you noticed that the media are using unflattering photos of Michael in their stories. It’s just another form of subtle manipulation used influence readers.
 
z21 said:
Can someone please explain me how is that possible that they are allowed to use in this shit doc official stuff like MJ's music, Smooth Criminal, Thriller music video, Bad tour videos, MJ kids footage etc ?
Click to expand...

that's a question that the Estate didn't answered it.
Lavelle Smith denied giving them his personal footage.
 
It warms my heart hearing his music shoot up the charts in the uk and especially new zealand. The people are speaking and no matter the hate the media spread. They do not and will never speak for those they are trying to brainwash. Loves lives forever?
 
1nn5 said:
that's a question that the Estate didn't answered it.
Lavelle Smith denied giving them his personal footage.
Click to expand...

Theres some rule about been able to use small amounts. The legal term has gone over my head but its been posted before
 
Albion;4247442 said:
Have you noticed that the media are using unflattering photos of Michael in their stories. It’s just another form of subtle manipulation used influence readers.
Click to expand...

Yea, they've always done that over here in the UK media. It just shows their agenda.
 
Slave To The Rhythm said:
If you want to defend Michael you have to watch it... you need to understand why People believe the documentary...
Click to expand...

I will never never watch it.
I don't watch documentary that praise Michael, and you want me to watch this documentary !
I believe a jury and not a documentary ;)
 
I think it's really convenient for Wade to say that MJ liked to keep his relationships with kids seperate. Because that means he literally has no clue that Michael also had sex with other kids.

But somebody should back up if it's true that he had different kids around him every 12 months because that's what is being claimed in the film, that would be idd suspicious behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top