Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => TMZ.com => Michael Jackson News => TMZ Articles => Topic started by: mdc on November 17, 2010, 10:46:17 PM
-
Randy Jackson Goes Nuts Over Michael's Album
14 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
Randy Jackson went on a tear on Twitter Wednesday night, swearing some of the songs on Sony's upcoming Michael Jackson album are fake.
Jackson tweeted, "Some of the songs are him, and some aren't. I would be [sic] my life on that ... I know this may seem harsh, but this is the truth, as I know it..."
Pretty much every expert who has analyzed the tracks says the voice is MJ's, but Randy is undeterred.
And he gets conspiratorial: "But what's worse then [sic] harsh is that my brother isn't here, and ll these people are more concerned about making money off his death...They could care less about why and how he died, or maybe they already know."
Randy also claims co-executor John McClain "didn't care about the quality or how complete the vocals were."
http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/randy-jac ... n-mcclain/ (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/randy-jackson-michael-jackson-tweet-twitter-sony-album-songs-tracks-voice-john-mcclain/)
-
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=15769 (http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=15769)
-
Actually I think this is a different topic since it is posting the link to what TMZ has to say about this. I think it is rather interesting that TMZ posted about Randy's tweets so soon after Randy finished tweeting. TMZ is definitely hanging all over the Michael saga!
-
Randy Jackson Goes Nuts Over Michael's Album
14 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
Randy Jackson went on a tear on Twitter Wednesday night, swearing some of the songs on Sony's upcoming Michael Jackson album are fake.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/09/15/0915-randy-jackson-bn-tmz.jpg)
Jackson tweeted, "Some of the songs are him, and some aren't. I would be [sic] my life on that ... I know this may seem harsh, but this is the truth, as I know it..."
Pretty much every expert who has analyzed the tracks says the voice is MJ's, but Randy is undeterred.
And he gets conspiratorial: "But what's worse then [sic] harsh is that my brother isn't here, and ll these people are more concerned about making money off his death...They could care less about why and how he died, or maybe they already know."
Randy also claims co-executor John McClain "didn't care about the quality or how complete the vocals were."
http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/randy-jackson-michael-jackson-tweet-twitter-sony-album-songs-tracks-voice-john-mcclain/
TMZ sure posted this article fast. Had Randy even finished twitter yet? :lol:
And The picture is ....BREAKING NEWS! (fakin the news?) ;)
-
"Randy Jackson went on a tear[/color] on Twitter Wednesday night"
"tear" is not being used properly, it is a grammatical error.
If they mean he was ranting on twitter, the word would be "tearing"
Tear
a : to move or act with violence, haste, or force <went tearing down the street>
So what else does "tear" mean.
Tear
1: a : to separate parts of or pull apart by force : rend
b : to wound by or as if by pulling apart by force : lacerate <tear the skin>
2: to divide or disrupt by the pull of contrary forces <a mind torn with doubts>
3: a : to remove by force : wrench —often used with off <tear a cover off a box>
b : to remove as if by wrenching <tear your thoughts away from the scene>
4: to make (a hole or opening) by or as if by pulling apart by force <tear a hole in the wall>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tear
So the major idea when "tear" is used as verb means, to rip apart, divide, separate...
It brings to mind the whole controversy in regards to the new album and how the fan base is divided.
Is this indicating Randy's role?
Is this controversy to test the unity of the fans, will they be there to support Michael when he decides to return, no matter the influences?
The urban dictionary definitions don't seem to fit either:
On a tear
1. On a streak or series, usually a winning streak. Will sometimes be used (semi-sarcastically) to define a losing streak. When used for a positive streak, it's similar to "tear it up."
2. A string of behaviour that is compulsive and deviant. The behaviour is typically of an "adult" nature such as drinking, screwing, swearing.
3. To have recently engaged in many sexual acts, with many different people.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=on+a+tear
-
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
-
I was sure TMZ would report it soon. But I was waiting to a little opinion too, not just reporting it.
And "to go on a tear" is used correctly, it means something like "he burst on twitter" as far as I know.
-
Harvey, can you give us a little opinion about Randy's twitts, please?
-
Randy cracks me up. He always tweets "dual meaning" tweets.... ;)
-
I was sure TMZ would report it soon. But I was waiting to a little opinion too, not just reporting it.
And "to go on a tear" is used correctly, it means something like "he burst on twitter" as far as I know.
I never heard of that phrase before so I looked it up and no where have I found the definition for this phrase that you are stating. I posted the urban dictionaries definitions and it doesn't mean that at all, nor does a traditional dictionary define it as such. Every site I have read says that the phrase means "a winning streak" and originated in sports, specifically with sportscasters.
Can you link something that shows that this phrase means what you have stated in your post please.
-
I've heard the expression, "So and so was tearing up the place." I take to mean the person was making a scene or drawing attention to themselves. IDK
-
I've heard the expression, "So and so was tearing up the place." I take to mean the person was making a scene or drawing attention to themselves. IDK
I originally put in my first post that the word "tear" was used incorrectly and if they were talking about a rant on twitter it should have been tearing and not "tear". So I then looked up the phrase "on a tear" and posted the definitions for that. The most common meaning of "on a tear" is on a "winning streak" or something is going up in value like a stock but as I said it originated in sports to describe someone or a team on a winning streak.
I feel that often times the clues in the TMZ articles have do with using words, phrases and idioms used incorrectly in the articles. These errors are: grammatically incorrect, wrong form of a word (as in spelling so the word means something else) or a phrase or idiom that doesn't fit the story being reported in the article. This is not the first time this has happened either. For instance, there have been several articles in which the word postmortem was used when the appropriate word would have been posthumously or something like that.
-
"on a tear Slang showing a sudden burst of energy"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear)
I don't understand why this would be the main idea to focus on this article. People lose themselves too much in details that mean nothing. I myself want to know wether Randy or the family has any rights to sue SONY for fraud. Do they have the right? Or not?
-
"on a tear Slang showing a sudden burst of energy"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear)
I don't understand why this would be the main idea to focus on this article. People lose themselves too much in details that mean nothing. I myself want to know wether Randy or the family has any rights to sue SONY for fraud. Do they have the right? Or not?
Actually I posted this in thread also.
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
But that isn't the comment you chose to quote or comment on. So if this isn't what you wanted to discuss, why quote that post and comment on it thus making it the focus in the first place?
And what you may feel is trivial, others may not. It seems the clues have been in the finer details in all of this. I say ignore what you don't believe or doesn't matter to you and investigate and answer your own questions.
-
So back to the main message, doesn't "going nuts" imply going crazy. So TMZ is saying that Randy's a little cuckoo, and out of his mind. Meaning the songs are going to be all Michael. I'm hoping! 8-) Sort of a negative on a negative, makes a positive. :?
-
I answered to this because you asked where did I find that.
Can you link something that shows that this phrase means what you have stated in your post please.
-
I answered to this because you asked where did I find that.
Can you link something that shows that this phrase means what you have stated in your post please.
But you originally directed your first post toward my post, which then prompted me to answer you.
I was sure TMZ would report it soon. But I was waiting to a little opinion too, not just reporting it.
And "to go on a tear" is used correctly, it means something like "he burst on twitter" as far as I know.
So if you didn't want me to respond why make a comment about my posts?
You must realize that if you comment on a post or quote a post that chances are good you will receive a response from the person you are commenting to or quoting.
-
I'll end up here as I am interested in other things than just a word, but again, I will repeat myself, I stated my opinion because I wanted to, and not because I expected you to answer to me. I said because I didn't find anything wrong in it, and we should focus on the subject and not on the use of a word that is used correctly, and drift away from the main idea here.I don't have to say my opinion only if I expect an answer. I didn't ask. I said what I found. It wasn't a question so I didn't expect your answer.And I can make comments about any post. I am free to, don't you think? we all are.
I finish here, the discussion itself it's pointless. I made a statement. Not a question.
-
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
Good point, Serenity. I find it interesting that in a Nov 10 tweet, Taj Jackson basically said that the album is not 100% Michael, yet all he hopes for is that Sony will remove the questionable tracks. Then the very next day, in response to the ITV show with MacKenzie's comments, he tweets that he's going to take legal action if they don't make an on-air apology. Which is the more important battle?
The family goes on and on about how this album is not all MJ. Well, then, do something about it! They need to start putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak; otherwise, this really is just all smoke and mirrors.
-
"on a tear Slang showing a sudden burst of energy"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear)
I don't understand why this would be the main idea to focus on this article. People lose themselves too much in details that mean nothing. I myself want to know wether Randy or the family has any rights to sue SONY for fraud. Do they have the right? Or not?
I'll end up here as I am interested in other things than just a word, but again, I will repeat myself, I stated my opinion because I wanted to, and not because I expected you to answer to me. I said because I didn't find anything wrong in it, and we should focus on the subject and not on the use of a word that is used correctly, and drift away from the main idea here.I don't have to say my opinion only if I expect an answer. I didn't ask. I said what I found. It wasn't a question so I didn't expect your answer.And I can make comments about any post. I am free to, don't you think? we all are.
I finish here, the discussion itself it's pointless. I made a statement. Not a question.
And it's Serenity's opinion that the word is important. For so strongly advocating one's freedom to express, you are quick to judge the worthiness of others' opinions. You may think the attention to the detail means nothing, but there are many here would disagree - as evidenced by the responses to many of SD's posts in this forum.
I don't understand the need to back somebody off who doesn't agree with your posts by stating you don't expect a response since you didn't ask a question. This is a discussion board - no questions required. As you've clearly said, you are just posting opinions. So is Serenity...and now so am I.
-
TMZ redirects to the word of God again:
Corinthians 11:18 (GOD’S WORD Translation)
In the first place, I hear that when you gather as a church you split up into opposing groups. I believe some of what I hear.
-
TMZ redirects to the word of God again:
Corinthians 11:18 (GOD’S WORD Translation)
In the first place, I hear that when you gather as a church you split up into opposing groups. I believe some of what I hear.
I don't understand what's this and what does this have to do with TMZ?
-
TMZ redirects to the word of God again:
Corinthians 11:18 (GOD’S WORD Translation)
In the first place, I hear that when you gather as a church you split up into opposing groups. I believe some of what I hear.
I don't understand what's this and what does this have to do with TMZ?
We have found a pattern with the date that TMZ releases certain weird articles, and then relate to the bible, as TIAI redirects do this often.....The date of this article is 18th November...which breaks down to 11:18. Then, we look up Chapter 11, verse 18, and 99% of the time, it fits in to what is being reported by TMZ, and their strange headlines. With Love xoxo
-
Hmm in my opinion, Randy either knows nothing of the hoax or he's there to make people think there is no hoax. Hmmm
-
We have found a pattern with the date that TMZ releases certain weird articles, and then relate to the bible, as TIAI redirects do this often.....The date of this article is 18th November...which breaks down to 11:18. Then, we look up Chapter 11, verse 18, and 99% of the time, it fits in to what is being reported by TMZ, and their strange headlines. With Love xoxo
Well, I came to know about that, I also saw a video on this subject. Again, I do not believe in the Bible so for me all this is a very tough struggle. I feel like I am forced to read all these from the Bible when I never believed in it. I don't understand what happens that lately every single redirect is to the Bible. Who doesn't believe in the Bible or reads it won't believe or read it from now on either, so I don't really like it, personally.
I feel like everything has drifted away from Michael and it all became a religious thing, with almost daily redirects to the Bible. And because people want to get to the bottom of it all, they read it today, read it tomorrow and they'll end up without even noticing thet they've read the whole Bible. And the answer is what? Nothing.
It's everyone's decision if they want to read the Bible or not and forcing people into it won't lead to anything. It all became all about religion and nothing about Michael. I don't say the Bible is good or bad, I just don't read either believe in it. Is that if those who don't read or believe the Bible have no rights to have answers? I don't find any answer in those quotes.
-
We have found a pattern with the date that TMZ releases certain weird articles, and then relate to the bible, as TIAI redirects do this often.....The date of this article is 18th November...which breaks down to 11:18. Then, we look up Chapter 11, verse 18, and 99% of the time, it fits in to what is being reported by TMZ, and their strange headlines. With Love xoxo
Well, I came to know about that, I also saw a video on this subject. Again, I do not believe in the Bible so for me all this is a very tough struggle. I feel like I am forced to read all these from the Bible when I never believed in it. I don't understand what happens that lately every single redirect is to the Bible. Who doesn't believe in the Bible or reads it won't believe or read it from now on either, so I don't really like it, personally.
I feel like everything has drifted away from Michael and it all became a religious thing, with almost daily redirects to the Bible. And because people want to get to the bottom of it all, they read it today, read it tomorrow and they'll end up without even noticing thet they've read the whole Bible. And the answer is what? Nothing.
It's everyone's decision if they want to read the Bible or not and forcing people into it won't lead to anything. It all became all about religion and nothing about Michael. I don't say the Bible is good or bad, I just don't read either believe in it. Is that if those who don't read or believe the Bible have no rights to have answers? I don't find any answer in those quotes.
Tarja, I had similar views to yours regarding the bible and it's place in all this. It took me a while but I eventually decided that this isn't my hoax, it's MJ's, and regardless of my beliefs, he does believe in the bible and it's a big part of who he is, so I can accept that he would want to include it in his hoax. I don't have to believe, but I can respect that he does, and it doesn't mean I don't have a voice and a say here.
I look on the bible references as interesting quotes, if nothing else. I'm not being forced into anything and I don't look for 'answers' in them. I'm keeping an open mind and watching and waiting - as I said before, it's not my hoax, so I can't control how it goes!
-
Yes, Curls, I know exactly what you are saying and I know Michael has faith in God and I respect that no matter what, no matter if my belief is different. The problem I have with all this is that I am somehow, because I want to find an answer to all this, forced to read those quotes. Yes, I can take them as Literature and most of the time this is how I take them in the attempt to be able to read them but I don't know if TS' intention is to have us all make our own opinion out of these or just feeding us unconsciously with those quotes. You understand me? This is my reaction against what I feel and smell like a mindocontrol - you read something you don't want to and you don't even realise when you have it all read just because you need an answer about what is Michael passing through, an answer to all this, a fact on which you can hold your opinions regarding a hoax
-
We have found a pattern with the date that TMZ releases certain weird articles, and then relate to the bible, as TIAI redirects do this often.....The date of this article is 18th November...which breaks down to 11:18. Then, we look up Chapter 11, verse 18, and 99% of the time, it fits in to what is being reported by TMZ, and their strange headlines. With Love xoxo
Well, I came to know about that, I also saw a video on this subject. Again, I do not believe in the Bible so for me all this is a very tough struggle. I feel like I am forced to read all these from the Bible when I never believed in it. I don't understand what happens that lately every single redirect is to the Bible. Who doesn't believe in the Bible or reads it won't believe or read it from now on either, so I don't really like it, personally.
I feel like everything has drifted away from Michael and it all became a religious thing, with almost daily redirects to the Bible. And because people want to get to the bottom of it all, they read it today, read it tomorrow and they'll end up without even noticing thet they've read the whole Bible. And the answer is what? Nothing.
It's everyone's decision if they want to read the Bible or not and forcing people into it won't lead to anything. It all became all about religion and nothing about Michael. I don't say the Bible is good or bad, I just don't read either believe in it. Is that if those who don't read or believe the Bible have no rights to have answers? I don't find any answer in those quotes.
Maybe it would be simpler for your to think of the "bible" as a guide or HIStory book, then it wont matter if you reealy believe in it, it is clear that for hoax purposes Michael believes in the bible and reads it daily so it is important to him, and hence it has become a directory for the hoax. I must admit I have never read the bible this deeply although I do believe in God. If you view the bible as a historical relic it may be easier for you to read.
Blessings
:)
-
@Tarja I hear what you are saying re: being forced to read something you don't want to. I have to caution you though, just because you read something, doesn't mean you have to believe it.
I've personally read scriptures from all kinds of holy books however I do not believe in all different religions. Similarly, we are "fed" things every minute of the day and are being programmed regularly. We need to learn to think for ourselves.
When presented with information, critically analyze and decide if this is going to be adopted by yourself and your thoughts or not. No one can FORCE you to believe something.
So like others have said here, just take it as a piece of literature, look for the message, move on. Don't get hung up on where the info is sourced from. That would be like people ignoring MJs message because "it's MJ and he's wacko and I hope this message isn't trying to get us to like MJ".
Treat everything like a grocery store. You can go up and down the isles, you can see all the products, you can read some labels, but only you choose what goes in the cart. :-)
-
Randy Jackson Goes Nuts Over Michael's Album
MJonmind wrote:
So back to the main message, doesn't "going nuts" imply going crazy. So TMZ is saying that Randy's a little cuckoo, and out of his mind. Meaning the songs are going to be all Michael. I'm hoping! Sort of a negative on a negative, makes a positive.
Who is crazy here, Randy or those who think there is any voice in this CD that is not Michael. Why not mention the possibility of a lawsuit? 8-)
-
If this is a hoax, which is what I believe... I really don't understand Randy's role in it.
-
Bee Bee wrote:
If this is a hoax, which is what I believe... I really don't understand Randy's role in it.
Randy's role is to make us all crazy :lol: :lol:
-
Bee Bee wrote:
If this is a hoax, which is what I believe... I really don't understand Randy's role in it.
Randy's role is to make us all crazy :lol: :lol:
I guess you're right! :lol:
-
"on a tear Slang showing a sudden burst of energy"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tear)
I don't understand why this would be the main idea to focus on this article. People lose themselves too much in details that mean nothing. I myself want to know wether Randy or the family has any rights to sue SONY for fraud. Do they have the right? Or not?
They do have rights and they do have a right to sue.
-
I don't know if they scream so much on twitter that the songs are a fraud why don't they go legal. This streanghten more my opinion that it is Michael all the way on Breaking news and the other 2 "fake" songs too. It is just absurd! If they say they are fake why don't they go legal?? They don't have the rights? I am not sure about this and eitehr I find informations but really wouldn't they have the rights to sue SONY? If they do have the rights and still don't move a finger it is clear (for anybody who says it's not Michael on the songs) that the songs are authentic as I always said.
-
Yes they do have rights to sue SONY, but the Estate would have to sue SONY on behalf of the family and the family would have to sue the Estate for mispresentation and fraud and so on. It gets complicated but from what Randy said last night in twitter, it sounds like the Estate and SONY are in bed together and so that leaves the family having to sue the Estate (if it came to that)... perhaps that is why he said Michael has no voice, we have to be that voice. To me this is looking more and more like bringing down the bad guys.... which is Branca and McClain and the President/CEO of Sony Music and any other SONY subsidiaries who are involved in MJ's music.
-
Randy Jackson Goes Nuts Over Michael's Album
14 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
Randy Jackson went on a tear on Twitter Wednesday night, swearing some of the songs on Sony's upcoming Michael Jackson album are fake.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/09/15/0915-randy-jackson-bn-tmz.jpg)
Jackson tweeted, "Some of the songs are him, and some aren't. I would be [sic] my life on that ... I know this may seem harsh, but this is the truth, as I know it..."
Pretty much every expert who has analyzed the tracks says the voice is MJ's, but Randy is undeterred.
And he gets conspiratorial: "But what's worse then [sic] harsh is that my brother isn't here, and ll these people are more concerned about making money off his death...They could care less about why and how he died, or maybe they already know."
Randy also claims co-executor John McClain "didn't care about the quality or how complete the vocals were."
http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/randy-jackson-michael-jackson-tweet-twitter-sony-album-songs-tracks-voice-john-mcclain/
TMZ sure posted this article fast. Had Randy even finished twitter yet? :lol:
And The picture is ....BREAKING NEWS! (fakin the news?) ;)
IDK if it's significant or not but TMZ has changed the picture for this article.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/18/111710-randy-jackson2-tmz.jpg)
I am not sure if that is even Randy Jackson. I am not that familiar with him but the address for the original pic is:
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/09/15/0915-randy-jackson-bn-tmz.jpg
So is this pic from September 15, 2010 or was it just used in an article posted on that date?
And the address for the new pic is:
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/18/111710-randy-jackson2-tmz.jpg
If this is a recent picture of Randy and the first one used, is from September, he sure has aged a lot in 2 months and he looks quite different to me...
Is this even him in the second picture?
Someone help me out here please :lol:
-
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
I absolutely agree with you on what you wrote, but I want to add that this actually goes for all the family members who go on a rant on social network pages. None of them have taken any action, yet the keep creating drama and division.
I still tend to believe this is a huge marketing stunt in which Sony, the MJ Estate, TMZ and the Jacksons jointly participate and cooperate.
If they wouldn't have wanted to cause controversy, the only thing they had to do was releasing an album which contains songs that MJ recorded, mixed and mastered for previous albums that were released while being under contract with Sony, but which didn't make these previous albums.
-
Okay, IDK if this is significant at all or if I am just looking for something significant.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/18/111710-randy-jackson2-tmz.jpg)
The sign in the background is fro the Madeo restaurant in Beverly Hills.
Randy was at Madeo with Oxman on July 14, 2010.
[youtube:3nf4vbdk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnfhf4SayU[/youtube:3nf4vbdk]
Randy was also at Madeo on August 1, 2009 with Joe and Katherine (dressed the same too?).
http://x17online.com/celebrities/michael_jackson/the_jacksons_dine_at_madeo-08022009.php
[attachment=0:3nf4vbdk]Jacksons at Madeo.jpg[/attachment:3nf4vbdk]
In the new picture on TMZ we only see part of the restaurant's sign clearly.
Madeo
A search of several surname websites showed only that the name Madeo has an Italian origin, but no known meaning.
http://www.chacha.com/question/where-does-the-name-madeo-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean
But "Madeo" is also the original title of a Korean movie that was at the 2009 Cannes Festival and had its U.S. premiere in February, 2010 as part of the Santa Barbara International Film Festival[2] and received a limited U.S. theatrical release in March 2010. the title was changed to "Mother".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeo
Mother (2009)
Madeo (original title)
A mother desperately searches for the killer that framed her son for their horrific murder.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216496/
The other part of the sign that we can see clearly is "storante" part of the word ristorante (Italian for restaurant)
St
abbreviation for Saint
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/st
Orante - Prayerful
http://translate.google.com/#it|en|orante%0A%0A
Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/michael.htm
Maybe it means nothing but with TIAI redirect to the story of Job and this article having the same date as the redirect, maybe it does mean something, you decide... :D 8-)
-
TMZ doesn't post a new photo on each article. The photos might very well be from July 14, it doesn't mean they are from now
-
TMZ doesn't post a new photo on each article. The photos might very well be from July 14, it doesn't mean they are from now
Not sure what you are trying to say here because TMZ did change the photo on this article.
Originally the article had this photo:
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/09/15/0915-randy-jackson-bn-tmz.jpg)
and they changed it to this photo:
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/11/18/111710-randy-jackson2-tmz.jpg)
They are obviously not the same photo. So the question is why did TMZ change it?
-
it's nothing new with that. TMZ changes photos almost always at any article, not only about Michael
-
Call me crazy or whatever you like but I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I have thought all along that Michael is playing different roles in this hoax including parading around as his Brothers from time to time. I think what is trying to be shown here is that one Randy is really Randy *that would be the one in the street-like scene* and the other one under the first Breaking News headline is Michael. I think Michael's list of character portrayal in this has been, Murray, Randy, Jermaine, Oprah, and I am sure some I have left out. Not saying he's these people every time we see them but some of the time for certain out-takes and photos.
-
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
I am not sure what legal position can have the family (MJ´s) regarding the interference between Sony and the Estate business, however, I agree with you, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material??. In case this last is possible, they are taking too long to do it. They are just complaining.
-
Gema wrote:
Serenitys_Dream wrote:
If Randy is so sure that this is not Michael singing theses songs, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material?
Now would be the time, before the album is released. If they received confirmation that it wasn't Michael, they would have grounds to stop the album from being released with these songs on it. This would force Sony and the Estate to remove those songs and replace them with confirmed Michael tracks. Or is this really Michael singing these songs after all?
I am not sure what legal position can have the family (MJ´s) regarding the interference between Sony and the Estate business, however, I agree with you, why hasn't he hired an independent forensic audiologist to analyze the material??. In case this last is possible, they are taking too long to do it. They are just complaining.
That is very true Gema only thing they do is complain and size as any measure, this statement of Randy's nothing unusual. ;)