Not going to quote your entire post.
1) You made the insistence that Michael was against reissuing previously released material, though that completely contradicts several projects that had either been put into production or released with his cooperation between 1989 and 2009. History: Book II was apparently a topic of discussion, as Brad Buxer and Rob Hoffman had said, but was never put into production.
2) Fair enough. Let's get back to exactly what you wrote: Where does your claim that Michael's own remixes were rejected come from? Please provide some evidence.
3) You made the insistence that Sony under promoted History, which could not be any less accurate. Michael had already broken chart records with "Scream/Childhood" and "You Are Not Alone"; withholding "Earth Song" hardly hurt anything. There's no evidence that "Earth Song" would have even been a success if you factor in music that was popular on the charts; if anything, "This Time Around" should have been issued, considering it included one of the hottest rappers in the world at that point. (It's also hilariously ironic that you made the snide comment "math alert!" when you listed the wrong number of short films made for Dangerous. It wasn't thirteen, genius, it was nine: "Jam," "In the Closet," "Remember the Time," "Heal the World," "Black or White," "Who Is It," "Give in to Me," "Will You Be There," and "Gone Too Soon". Math alert!)
4) It seems to me that you have no understanding of how record labels work, but that's besides the point. Fact of the matter is, the media had been discussing Michael's decreasing sales for decades. Look it up for five minutes. There was rampant discussion in 1987 over whether or not Bad would come close to Thriller's sales numbers, followed by questions of "did the album fail?" when it ultimately didn't. The very same thing happened with Dangerous. (Also, quick fact: there is no tie between Bad and Dangerous. Bad sold more.)
5) Are you blaming the quality of the Invincible short films on Sony? Hardly. "You Rock My World" was put together entirely with Michael's cooperation, and it was director Nick Brandt's idea for "Cry" to not include him at all.
6) Sony did more for Invincible than Michael did. It is true that they did not put their full financial backing into Invincible as they had with Dangerous or History, though that is completely justifiable on various fronts, particularly considering what I said before regarding their approach to Michael leaving the company. The Invincible campaign was lackluster in comparison to previous outings, but on its own, it was a solid effort. You simply over exaggerate the seriousness of it.
7) The exact wording of your claim was,
"Mere less it selling eight million copies in the first few months after debuting at number one in the U.S. and worldwide in 11 other countries." I pointed out that this claim is completely false, acknowledging that Invincible only managed three million by the end of the year. (A respectable number, but not nearly close to what you posted.)
8) By the end of 2001, Sony had issued two singles from Invincible ("You Rock My World" and "Cry"), both of which were supplemented with music videos. Various posters and television commercials were also put into production and debuted across the globe. Not to mention that Sony had paid for most, if not ALL of the studio fees for Michael and his producers/musicians/engineers to record for four straight years. (The $30 million claim is grossly exaggerated, but they certainly put an obscene amount of money into this project.) Michael, meanwhile, engaged in an album signing event in New York City, did one or two interviews, had performed "You Rock My World" during his two Madison Square Garden shows, and... that's it. No public performances of album tracks, no extended interview campaign, no worldwide tour. He did more to sabotage Invincible than Sony did! The packaging of Invincible was on par with every album that had come before it, with the sole exception of History due to that being a double-disc album; not sure what point you were trying to make there.
The thing about your post that gets on my nerves is that you are talking down to myself and other users. You speak as if you hold the sum of all Michael Jackson knowledge which, considering how wrong almost all of your posts are, is comical. You clearly have no understanding of anything you are talking about and are simply spouting the same fan propaganda that has been circulating for years. I'm in a constant pursuit of knowledge and will openly admit when I'm wrong, but that won't be an issue with you.
This rudeness and crass about your attitude is unnecessary, and I would advise you to tone it down. I'd also suggest you look up some of the information you're discussing BEFORE posting it arrogantly, so you won't be proven wrong and embarrassed.