The Michael Jackson family

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby figuringitout on April 4th, 2012, 5:48 pm

gwynned wrote:
philipsmovies wrote:Just wondering if there is a connection between the fake death of Paul McCartney and the fake death of Michael Jackson? Remember the symbolism in the "Say, Say, Say" video.

it's a kinda magic


The McCartney thing has me stumped. Is he really dead and the new Paul a fake? Or was that all some kind of strange publicity stunt?

If he's not the real Paul, did Michael know it? If he did, why did he sing with him? Why was Michael so bent on the Beatles catalog. Was it just good business?


McCartney is a fake. Whether the original is dead or not, who knows, but it's most likely unfortunately. That question isn't as important as the fact he was replaced. The thing is, the McCartney business is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this stuff. To be honest I'm not entirely convinced that Jackson from Bad onwards was the original Michael Jackson. It's an open question as far as I'm concerned.
figuringitout
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: August 21st, 2011, 8:41 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby gwynned on April 4th, 2012, 6:33 pm

figuringitout wrote:
gwynned wrote:
philipsmovies wrote:Just wondering if there is a connection between the fake death of Paul McCartney and the fake death of Michael Jackson? Remember the symbolism in the "Say, Say, Say" video.

it's a kinda magic


The McCartney thing has me stumped. Is he really dead and the new Paul a fake? Or was that all some kind of strange publicity stunt?

If he's not the real Paul, did Michael know it? If he did, why did he sing with him? Why was Michael so bent on the Beatles catalog. Was it just good business?


McCartney is a fake. Whether the original is dead or not, who knows, but it's most likely unfortunately. That question isn't as important as the fact he was replaced. The thing is, the McCartney business is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this stuff. To be honest I'm not entirely convinced that Jackson from Bad onwards was the original Michael Jackson. It's an open question as far as I'm concerned.


I agree with you about Michael and it's a question that remains unanswered for me. He insists he had only one surgery and that was on his nose. He also made a comment somewhere that he was simply 'changing.'

Then there is the matter of doubles. People have identified 3 different Michaels in This is It. But are they Michael and two doubles or are they all Michael but with 3 different personas? With Michael it's difficult to differentiate the lies from the truth. So far, I've been able to accept the ambiguity, perhaps because I sense the essence behind all of it is the same and is benign, playful and infinitely loving.

Following this hoax has been comparable to reading a page turner novel. One can't help but want to skip ahead and get to the end to see how it all turns out, forgetting to savor the moments of uncertainty and expectation that are a part of every great story.
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby lux on April 4th, 2012, 6:33 pm

I am skeptical that the person in this video is who he is purported to be and the same goes for the phony-looking, over-enthusiastic fans who suddenly erupt when they see the camera is on them at 0:50:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-am6sHH_wUQ
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby gwynned on April 4th, 2012, 6:43 pm

lux wrote:I am skeptical that the person in this video is who he is purported to be and the same goes for the phony-looking, over-enthusiastic fans who suddenly erupt when they see the camera is on them at 0:50:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-am6sHH_wUQ


There is so much wrong with this video and was the first clue for many of us that this might all be a hoax. His voice is off, the wig is lop sided, his posture and mannerisms are decidedly unMichael. And with all the cell phones and photos being taken, how is it that not one has shown up anywhere?

But that does not mean it's not Michael. He loved to wear disguises. It was only a matter of time he would wear the fake Michael disguise, I guess. On the other hand, there's a theory out there that this Michael persona is none other than Jim Carey! That would work as he played Andy Kaufman in the Man on the Moon and it's alleged that Andy also faked his death. So there you have it. A never ending tapestry of overlapping patterns that make it quite difficult to unravel.
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby lux on April 4th, 2012, 8:04 pm

An interesting comparison of the hand of the person in the above video:
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxdeath.net/old_mjhd/index_37.html
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby figuringitout on April 4th, 2012, 10:35 pm

gwynned wrote:
lux wrote:I am skeptical that the person in this video is who he is purported to be and the same goes for the phony-looking, over-enthusiastic fans who suddenly erupt when they see the camera is on them at 0:50:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-am6sHH_wUQ


There is so much wrong with this video and was the first clue for many of us that this might all be a hoax. His voice is off, the wig is lop sided, his posture and mannerisms are decidedly unMichael. And with all the cell phones and photos being taken, how is it that not one has shown up anywhere?

But that does not mean it's not Michael. He loved to wear disguises. It was only a matter of time he would wear the fake Michael disguise, I guess. On the other hand, there's a theory out there that this Michael persona is none other than Jim Carey! That would work as he played Andy Kaufman in the Man on the Moon and it's alleged that Andy also faked his death. So there you have it. A never ending tapestry of overlapping patterns that make it quite difficult to unravel.


In my opinion the person in that footage is most definitely not Michael Jackson. Just watched it for the first time since around the time it was first aired, and cannot believe how obvious it is that it is not him. Obviously could be anyone playing him, but I watched it after seeing your Jim Carey comment and could definitely see how that idea (however wild) has come about. The mannerisms are very Jim Carey like. He's also appears to be about the right height/build etc. Shape of the skull looks possible as well.

The crowd doesn't look as big as it likes to give the impression, and there is a definite 'rent-a-crowd' feel about the whole thing with the OTT people at the front. Good point also about all those cameras going off from 'fans'. The web should be saturated with pictures of this event on Michael Jackson fan-sites.

Pretty interesting stuff.
figuringitout
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: August 21st, 2011, 8:41 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby MsQ on April 4th, 2012, 11:30 pm

lux wrote:An interesting comparison of the hand of the person in the above video:
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxdeath.net/old_mjhd/index_37.html


I was going to comment on the hands too. I have a Palmistry background.
Looking at the video still, my first impression was, "That's not Michael Jacksons Hand." However, on closer inspection I think it is. I have found that when looking at hand shape using random photos on the internet, the angle at which the pic is taken can skew the shape of the hand and the shapes of the finger tips, as can however the hand is being held at the time. Maybe lens distortion plays a part too? I don't know enough about that side of things. However the lighting difference in both pics and the way the hands are being held on the above page means that not all of the lines are shown clearly in either pic.

Looking at the finger placement, finger length, individual phalange lengths, they all look the same. Finding 2 individuals with these 3 similarities alone would be unusual IMO.
Lines on the fingers seem to match up too.
Both hands have waisted 2nd & 3rd fingers.
Finger placement & alignment looks to be the same, as does the spacing between the fingers.
Placement and angle of the base of the thumb matches.
Lines at the wrist match.
Percussion side of the hand looks to be the same shape.
Palm colour / discolouring seems to be close enough.
Droplet finger tips appear to be on both at least 2 fingers on both hands.
"Knuckled" first phalange on the little finger of both hands.
It's hard to see all of the major lines clearly on both hands. From what I can see though, where the Head and Life Line meet and cross seems to match on both hands. The camera angle, lighting and the way the hand is being held IMO, is skewing the MJ hand and his lifeline. The same goes for the area of the Heart Line on the other hand. It looks to me that the Heart Line on the "imposter" hand is in the same place as the MJ hand, even though it's barely visible.

Here's a chart I made up a while ago as a guide of what I look for when comparing hands of two people. (I hope it makes sense to non-palmistry people anyway! :D )

Image
MsQ
Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 5:40 am

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby lux on April 4th, 2012, 11:49 pm

MsQ, thanks! :)
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby fbenario on April 5th, 2012, 1:10 am

gwynned wrote:So far, I've been able to accept the ambiguity, perhaps because I sense the essence behind all of it is the same and is benign, playful and infinitely loving.

Benign? Why the hell would you conclude that? A Hollywood-created star manipulating reality. By definition it CAN'T be benign under any circumstance.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby gwynned on April 5th, 2012, 2:49 am

fbenario wrote:
gwynned wrote:So far, I've been able to accept the ambiguity, perhaps because I sense the essence behind all of it is the same and is benign, playful and infinitely loving.

Benign? Why the hell would you conclude that? A Hollywood-created star manipulating reality. By definition it CAN'T be benign under any circumstance.


I understand your skepticism and would probably be agreeing with you had I not been drawn in, almost against my will, to this hoax. I've spent over two years getting to know the MAN not the Hollywood icon. Most people understandably conflate the two because that's all they know. But what we see is merely the show which may or may not have much relationship to the actors in the show.

It's indisputable that he donated massive amounts to charity. He visited numerous hospitals whenever he went on tour and without publicity, opened Neverland to children suffering from disabilities and illnesses, and entertained the world with some innovative music and dance. He's also got a WICKED sense of humor, and seems to know how to have fun. But most of all, I think, I've come to appreciate him as a father and his kids are testament to that.
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby reel.deal on April 5th, 2012, 10:30 am

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
Member
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby figuringitout on April 5th, 2012, 7:40 pm

reel.deal wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJwGJtE8rl8
http://www.jamesmccartney.com/
http://www.jamesmccartney.com/index.php

Paul McCartney replaced by imposter scouser dead-ringer lookalike ?
guess this guy James isnt really McCartney's son then, either...

;)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6eV7ZsghCs

an ex-girlfriend of mine knew Julian Lennon from high-school days
in Ruthin, N.Wales. he looks nothing like his dad either, right ?

:rolleyes:


I'm not sure hat you're trying to say here. Obviously if McCartney was replaced in 1966 and his son was born some years afterwards then he is going to be the son of the alleged imposter.

And as regards Julian Lennon, I don't think anyone implies that he isn't the son of the one and only true John Lennon. Julian was born in '63, John was allegedly replaced in '66-'67.

If anything what Julian says in that video could be easily construed as evidence in favour of a replacement being made.
figuringitout
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: August 21st, 2011, 8:41 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby Alphard on April 5th, 2012, 8:54 pm

....
Last edited by Alphard on April 27th, 2012, 5:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Alphard
Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 7:11 pm

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby fbenario on April 6th, 2012, 1:31 am

gwynned wrote: It's indisputable that he donated massive amounts to charity. He visited numerous hospitals whenever he went on tour and without publicity, opened Neverland to children suffering from disabilities and illnesses

How can you possibly say any of this malarkey actually happened. You don't know whether of it ever happened.

Why do you say no one knows the man behind the public figure, implying that the man is a good guy that we should get to know. If that's the truth, the 'real' man behind the public figure is a liar. NOTHING he does or says is benign, especially not some feel-good story about his 'good works'. Remember, the whole college fraternity system justifies its existence and autonomy by bragging that it spends Saturday afternoons doing community service. So the f**k what? They spend their Saturday nights forcing binge-drinking on impressionable young man looking for approval and acceptance, and raping drunken women in their bedrooms.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Michael Jackson family

Postby gwynned on April 6th, 2012, 2:16 am

fbenario wrote:
gwynned wrote: It's indisputable that he donated massive amounts to charity. He visited numerous hospitals whenever he went on tour and without publicity, opened Neverland to children suffering from disabilities and illnesses

How can you possibly say any of this malarkey actually happened. You don't know whether of it ever happened.

Why do you say no one knows the man behind the public figure, implying that the man is a good guy that we should get to know. If that's the truth, the 'real' man behind the public figure is a liar. NOTHING he does or says is benign, especially not some feel-good story about his 'good works'. Remember, the whole college fraternity system justifies its existence and autonomy by bragging that it spends Saturday afternoons doing community service. So the f**k what? They spend their Saturday nights forcing binge-drinking on impressionable young man looking for approval and acceptance, and raping drunken women in their bedrooms.


I cannot, nor can anyone else, speak with certainty what goes on in a man's heart. What I can say with certainty is that he gave an extraordinary amount of money to charity. There are numerous anecdotal stories of his generosity to strangers he met. His music never had the feel of the dark side as does that of some entertainers. And there is no evidence of any personal excesses as you describe and, while the media continued to question his innocence, he was acquitted of all charges ever brought against him.

So I have concluded from the evidence that Michael Jackson is a man of honor with a genuine concern for the plight of his fellow man and the environment. If you've not seen these two powerful videos, they might change your mind about him. I know they did mine. It was my daughter who, the day he 'died,' played them for me and they are what started me on this crazy path.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HSNeHHuQA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU
gwynned
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest