Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Hoax Investigation => General Hoax Investigation => Other Odd Things => Topic started by: truthprevails on November 18, 2010, 03:55:42 PM
-
So "BACK" is this person who joined the MJJC forum in April 2005 and made some very interesting posts, many of them strongly defending Katherine Jackson, which overall make many of us believe that he's either MJ or else a real insider. Well, looking at some of his posts recently I realized that he doesn't seem to believe in the hoax... How can we explain this? If MJ is alive, shouldn't "BACK" know this?
I don't know how to attach BACK's posts in a way that you can view them, so I'll just use the links from Bec's blog (haha, using Bec's blog again):
On 25-10-2009 BACK wrote:
"Conrad Mur[derer] (the taker of life)"
http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... rning2.jpg (http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/mjjckjwarning2.jpg)
On 22-06-2010 BACK wrote, referring to Katherine:
"After losing a Son nearly a year ago, you're reminded of just how fragile any element of life can be."
http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... 060210.jpg (http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/mjjckjwarning060210.jpg)
BACK is very no-nonsense in general, and I don't get the sense he was kidding when calling Murray a murderer... I'm puzzled. :?:
-
Glad you're bringing this up. I remember reading that and also puzzling over it too. In my mind I guess I was thinking that BACK was cryptic by pretending to be an insider and an outsider, not too clearly so people wouldn't suspect he was Michael. Like elements of this hoax with TIAI, TS, and TMZ many statements seem to contradict each other creating confusion. That's how I took it. BACK couldn't let certain elements out of the bag too soon. JMO.
-
Glad you're bringing this up. I remember reading that and also puzzling over it too. In my mind I guess I was thinking that BACK was cryptic by pretending to be an insider and an outsider, not too clearly so people wouldn't suspect he was Michael. Like elements of this hoax with TIAI, TS, and TMZ many statements seem to contradict each other creating confusion. That's how I took it. BACK couldn't let certain elements out of the bag too soon. JMO.
Yes, but BACK has the choice of not posting at all, or not talking about Murray at all. To write implying that Michael was murdered is a strong statement - which also seems reckless and insensitive to me, if Michael is really alive.
-
So "BACK" is this person who joined the MJJC forum in April 2005 and made some very interesting posts, many of them strongly defending Katherine Jackson, which overall make many of us believe that he's either MJ or else a real insider. Well, looking at some of his posts recently I realized that he doesn't seem to believe in the hoax... How can we explain this? If MJ is alive, shouldn't "BACK" know this?
I don't know how to attach BACK's posts in a way that you can view them, so I'll just use the links from Bec's blog (haha, using Bec's blog again):
On 25-10-2009 BACK wrote:
"Conrad Mur[derer] (the taker of life)"
http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... rning2.jpg (http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/mjjckjwarning2.jpg)
On 22-06-2010 BACK wrote, referring to Katherine:
"After losing a Son nearly a year ago, you're reminded of just how fragile any element of life can be."
http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... 060210.jpg (http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/mjjckjwarning060210.jpg)
BACK is very no-nonsense in general, and I don't get the sense he was kidding when calling Murray a murderer... I'm puzzled. :?:
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really see where it absolutely isn't Michael. I'll have to look at it some more but this BACK person is really protective of Katherine and talks as one who knows the family first hand.
-
voiceforthesilent:
There's no absolute proof that BACK is Michael either. It could be Janet or Randy, it could be Diana Ross or Evan Ross, it could be anyone familiar with the music biz and somewhat familiar with Michael...
Whenever we believe that someone is an insider (MJ or not), we want proof that they are, NOT that they aren't. (If I say to you that I'm an insider, you'll ask for proof right?) And if BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"?
-
If he posted anything saying he beLIEved in the hoax he would have been blasted by the members. MJ is smarter than that.
BeLIEving BACK is MJ is not for everyone. It's been debated and posted many times, but you will either beLIEve it's MJ or not. I am convinced it's MJ.
-
voiceforthesilent:
There's no absolute proof that BACK is Michael either. It could be Janet or Randy, it could be Diana Ross or Evan Ross, it could be anyone familiar with the music biz and somewhat familiar with Michael...
Whenever we believe that someone is an insider (MJ or not), we want proof that they are, NOT that they aren't. (If I say to you that I'm an insider, you'll ask for proof right?) And if BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"?
Trust me it's not Diana or Evan or Randy
-
Okay, I'm just now getting aquainted with BACK. So I may not have enough information to have an opinion at all. But I just read one of the posts you included, and the part where he says Conrad Mur(derer) made me laugh instantly. Like, I felt like it was done intentionally to be funny. Sort of like a play on words. And "Taker of life" I read as if it were his "role" in a film. If BACK is MJ, then I think that might be appropriate for him to do. A bit insensitive? Maybe. But isn't faking your death a bit insensitive? Many think so. Mike's a prankster, remember?! :D ;)
I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.
-
foreverking:
No one has yet offered a possible answer to my question:
If BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"? I don't believe in blind faith, or in disregarding everything that doesn't fit the hoax idea or our ideas of who TS or BACK or other people & things are... I try to stay objective (as much as I can) and notice when something supports the hoax AND when something doesn't.
I understand that Michael/BACK wouldn't necessarily say "Mike's alive" or "I believe in the hoax", but why make a post calling Murray a murderer? As I said, BACK didn't need to post at all, or to talk about Murray at all.
-
Okay, I'm just now getting aquainted with BACK. So I may not have enough information to have an opinion at all. But I just read one of the posts you included, and the part where he says Conrad Mur(derer) made me laugh instantly. Like, I felt like it was done intentionally to be funny. Sort of like a play on words. And "Taker of life" I read as if it were his "role" in a film. If BACK is MJ, then I think that might be appropriate for him to do. A bit insensitive? Maybe. But isn't faking your death a bit insensitive? Many think so. Mike's a prankster, remember?! :D ;)
I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.
Thanks for responding, Jaci. If you could see those posts as funny/humorous, that's OK... I really didn't. BACK is pretty dead serious in his posts, generally speaking... A death hoax is about joking that YOU (Mike in this case) are dead, which isn't insensitive - especially if your family and close friends are in the know. Referring to SOMEONE ELSE as a murderer is a different story - and Michael was always careful about the statements he made about others. VERY careful, if you look at his interviews, speeches, and even leaked phone calls to random friends. He refused to trash Eminem when given the chance, for instance.
-
foreverking:
No one has yet offered a possible answer to my question:
If BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"? I don't believe in blind faith, or in disregarding everything that doesn't fit the hoax idea or our ideas of who TS or BACK or other people & things are... I try to stay objective (as much as I can) and notice when something supports the hoax AND when something doesn't.
I understand that Michael/BACK wouldn't necessarily say "Mike's alive" or "I believe in the hoax", but why make a post calling Murray a murderer? As I said, BACK didn't need to post at all, or to talk about Murray at all.
[/size]
Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either... ;) lol jk :D
My point is, if BACK is Mike, I think he would make his own rules just like with everything else.
Again, I have only read a few of BACK's posts. So I do not really know if he is Michael. Just sort of playing devil's advocate and sharing my first impressions, but definitely ready to learn more about this.
-
Okay, I'm just now getting aquainted with BACK. So I may not have enough information to have an opinion at all. But I just read one of the posts you included, and the part where he says Conrad Mur(derer) made me laugh instantly. Like, I felt like it was done intentionally to be funny. Sort of like a play on words. And "Taker of life" I read as if it were his "role" in a film. If BACK is MJ, then I think that might be appropriate for him to do. A bit insensitive? Maybe. But isn't faking your death a bit insensitive? Many think so. Mike's a prankster, remember?! :D ;)
I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.
Thanks for responding, Jaci. If you could see those posts as funny/humorous, that's OK... I really didn't. BACK is pretty dead serious in his posts, generally speaking... A death hoax is about joking that YOU (Mike in this case) are dead, which isn't insensitive - especially if your family and close friends are in the know. Referring to SOMEONE ELSE as a murderer is a different story - and Michael was always careful about the statements he made about others. VERY careful, if you look at his interviews, speeches, and even leaked phone calls to random friends. He refused to trash Eminem when given the chance, for instance.
I can definitely see where you are coming from with that. I suppose I'm just looking at it from a different angle. I figure it's possible for Murrary to be in the know and perhaps even on Michael's side. Afterall, do we even know if that is his real identity? He could be laughing about that comment right now as we speak. He is a "murderer" in public opinion. Maybe that is his role in this alternate reality film and therefore was said in good humor.
Totally possible that my imagination has just run off again though :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Jaci, you said:
"Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either..."
Jaci, do you really think Michael did this as a game/play? And he "didn't need to"?
Sorry, but I believe this is SERIOUS STUFF. Michael did not hoax his death (assuming he did), and put his 3 children through this, for no good reason...
1. MJ may actually have been forced into this - by circumstances we aren't aware of.
2. Even if MJ wasn't forced, he had a damn good reason for this.
EDIT: OK, I see you said "jk" and I do hope you were joking.
-
voiceforthesilent:
There's no absolute proof that BACK is Michael either. It could be Janet or Randy, it could be Diana Ross or Evan Ross, it could be anyone familiar with the music biz and somewhat familiar with Michael...
Whenever we believe that someone is an insider (MJ or not), we want proof that they are, NOT that they aren't. (If I say to you that I'm an insider, you'll ask for proof right?) And if BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"?
Please accept my apology if I've upset you. I can see that you feel quite passionate about this. I did not make the statement to say that I believe Michael is BACK. He could be, he couldn't be. I am definitely leaning towards an insider but I didn't mean to imply that I believe it was definitely Michael. I was just saying that those statements didn't give me a clear indication that it wasn't.
I agree with Jaci - I think the comment about Mur (derer) was meant with humor. I even chuckled when I saw how it was worded.
Please accept my apology for upsetting you. You could very well be right. At this point we only have suspicions one way or the other.
Blessings.
-
Jaci, you said:
"Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either..."
Jaci, do you really think Michael did this as a game/play? And he "didn't need to"?
Sorry, but I believe this is SERIOUS STUFF. Michael did not hoax his death (assuming he did), and put his 3 children through this, for no good reason...
1. MJ may actually have been forced into this - by circumstances we aren't aware of.
2. Even if MJ wasn't forced, he had a damn good reason for this.
Oh I agree 100% that it's serious stuff, for sure. He did have damn good reason. But, I also believe it's possible to have fun while dealing with serious stuff, he proved that his entire life. Reminds me of a quote from V for Vendetta:
"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having" :D
Plus, you have to admit, many aspects of all this have been QUITE entertaining, right?
And yes, if he was forced into it for reasons we aren't aware of then that would be a different story.
Oh and by the way, I was being sarcastic when I said MJ didn't need to hoax his death. I know he DEFINITELY needed to do this, it was very necessary. Sorry, I always try to stray from sarcasm over the internet because tone is so hard to detect. :lol:
-
Truthprevails - you appear to be upset over this but please know that we are all on your side. We are searching for the truth just like you are. We all know how serious this is and we all know there has to be good reason.
May I kindly say that it's not beneficial to attack others if they don't believe the same as you do. May I also say that I love your passion for Michael and for finding the truth. The truth will be revealed in the end regardless of the vehicle we use to get there. Please know that we do care. Blessings.
Jaci, you said:
"Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either..."
Jaci, do you really think Michael did this as a game/play? And he "didn't need to"?
Sorry, but I believe this is SERIOUS STUFF. Michael did not hoax his death (assuming he did), and put his 3 children through this, for no good reason...
1. MJ may actually have been forced into this - by circumstances we aren't aware of.
2. Even if MJ wasn't forced, he had a damn good reason for this.
-
Jaci: I edited my post - noticed you said you were joking.
voiceforthesilent: It's cool, you didn't upset me! I just think there's a bit of a tendency on this forum to make the things that don't fit the hoax fit, one way or another, and I wish that we could just set them aside as "things that raise little alarm bells" without forcing them to fit. Of course there's a lot that none of us really know, and we can only hypothesize...
This is just something that raised an alarm bell for me, and it made me wonder whether there could be a motivation/reason for BACK making those statements which eludes me (because it really does).
-
Jaci: I edited my post - noticed you said you were joking.
voiceforthesilent: It's cool, you didn't upset me! I just think there's a bit of a tendency on this forum to make the things that don't fit the hoax fit, one way or another, and I wish that we could just set them aside as "things that raise little alarm bells" without forcing them to fit. Of course there's a lot that none of us really know, and we can only hypothesize...
This is just something that raised an alarm bell for me, and it made me wonder whether there could be a motivation/reason for BACK making those statements which eludes me (because it really does).
LOL - funny, because I added the "jk" to my posts about TWO seconds after I posted it, because I realized I had used sarcasm and it has gotten me in trouble in the past...so I wanted to edit it before anyone could see it. Dang, I wasn't quick enough! :lol:
And don't worry, I don't feel I was being attacked. I am used to conversations getting a bit passionate here and I think at this point most of us just take it with a grain of salt. At least I do. We all come from different walks of life that allow us to see things differently. It's a blessing not a curse! I just try to take it all in as well as give what I have to contribute to the conversation.
Love!
-
I didn't mean to attack anyone, and I'm really sorry if it came across that way. I will actually stay out of this particular thread from now on, as I've already made my viewpoint clear and basically asked people for their opinions. So I will let others contribute their views. Thanks!
-
I havent' read all of the post but I wanted to make a point about the hoax
You are trying to find logical answers to an illogical situation (the hoax).
Think about it, nothing about this situation is logical no matter what you believe (beLIEve). MJ faking his death is not logical. MJ being afraid for his life, yet taking a drug which could kill him in his sleep from a doctor who he hardly knew, is not logical. MJ posting on a public forum under a pseudo name is not logical. MJ doing 50 concerts at the age of 50 is not logical. BACK posting the exact date of MJ's death is not logical. Mother Kate going on Oprah when she knows how her son felt about Oprah, not logical. Yet all of these things have occured.
MJ thinks outside of the box, he's proved this many times as he continues to make history. BACK never asked for followers or said he was an insider. He never made You tube videos and he never send out tweets. He never asked anyone to believe he is MJ and he has never tried to prove anything. You can either believe he's MJ or not. I choose to beLIEve.
-
truth you read the whole blog post didn't you?
MJ appears to be doing something on the MJJC site. Perhaps punking them has been planned for a long time. He said "this forum [MJJC] serves it's purpose well" shortly after arriving on the scene (2006).
Maybe they are supposed to be involved for a reason. There's seems to be some manipulation going on there, with Admin and deletion of hoax related comments. They are being led along. The information they are allowed to discuss there is being controlled for some reason. Remember, MJJC is owned by someone close to the estate.
Between back's posts, the connections MJJC has, the Breaking News controversey and subsequent estate/sony statements and the family twitter war all enraging the fan community, causing them to fight bitterly within the ranks... something is going on here.
(Ps. some may not realize, many MJJC members assumed back was MJ and discussed it openly on the boards, so in order for back to continue posting post 6/25/09, he HAD to address the Murray/Murder/MJ is Dead thing and comment accordingly as a "non-believer" else it would have looked suspicious and people might wonder. This caused anyone who had suspicions before to change their mind and accept that back had never been MJ after all. Obviously, MJJC intends to remain hoax-talk free and hoax-thought free as well. Again, indicating an agenda.)
-
Ps. some may not realize, many MJJC members assumed back was MJ and discussed it openly on the boards, so in order for back to continue posting post 6/25/09, he HAD to address the Murray/Murder/MJ is Dead thing and comment accordingly as a "non-believer" else it would have looked suspicious and people might wonder. This caused anyone who had suspicions before to change their mind and accept that back had never been MJ after all. Obviously, MJJC intends to remain hoax-talk free and hoax-thought free as well. Again, indicating an agenda.
I have been thinking about this too, why BACK seems to be completely PRO-murder idea. But you are right,people there already implied it was Michael so considering that the forum forbids any hoax discussion, how could he post without it being either deleted or suspicious.
I say this because in a way I believe BACK could be Michael, even if his way of talking is completely different, there are some things he said, the 7 days theory, the post on 5th of november about coincidences, that are strange.Who could have said that if not him?
-
He warned them too, one year ago, to lay off the Jackson family, especially KJ, or else. Repeatedly and aggressively I'd say.
Said:
“But I promise, not only Mr. Taylor, but to those who sincerely believe in the ORIGINAL intent of this forum, if Katherine Jackson is not given her due respect, we are prepared to transfer part of the burden we have had to bear from those relentless insults right where it belongs. Sadly, most of the disdain originates from an UNLIKELY place! The more I think about it, the greater my agony elevates because I never thought it would devolve to such a circumstance. The leadership could help us, but many appear to subliminally support it. Michael wouldn’t WANT this I assure you. Me-me-me ness will lead some to the edge before they open their eyes.
Real Talk!
Keep WATCHIN'.......
and lots more.
I have all the screenshots of back's warnings starting 10/24/09, lots on 11/5/09, through the last one 6/22/10, (11) total, on this page: http://exploringthehoax.wordpress.com/2 ... old-water/ (http://exploringthehoax.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/awaken-ye-non-believers-and-for-some-of-you-its-with-cold-water/)
-
Anna, don't forget "keep watchin'" :18 This Is It trailer.
-
Anna, don't forget "keep watchin'" :18 This Is It trailer.
I always understood "now, watch me". I am still not sure about it, I don't know
-
Yes....I know. I am not sure if he says "now watch me" or "keep watchin' ". I was always bugged about that. Is it "official" he says "keep watchin' "?
-
The clip in question, at :18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoPOx4P4 ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoPOx4P4X6I&feature=related)
-
It sounds like "keep watchin' " but it is so short that I can't say for sure
-
I'd say "Keep Watchin'" though it's so well-hidden! Had the volume way up on my headphones! As for BACK, I always got the impression that he was MJ, the anger he expressed wasn't a surprise to me, I know some have said MJ didn't talk like that, but I think that's the point. People only knew the image that was created and I think if you consider a lot of the songs on HIStory and Invincible he was able to express anger and rage through them but usually that was something that he kept repressed from public view. He maybe needed those who would try and destroy him to believe that he was such a gentle innocent soul that he wasn't capable of talking tough or making threats, at least outside of the recording studio. It reminds me of what BlackJack was talking about, how he may have been hoaxing us all for years with this image of a sweet innocent childlike man who played with butterflies, and how someone like that would probably not have achieved the kind of things MJ has achieved in the music and entertainment business. He is smart, a good businessman(I don't think he ever was broke) and had the ambition, drive and talent to go beyond superstardom. After everything he went through someone so fragile would have been left in the dust, but I believe he is and was made of much stronger stuff than he was given credit for.
-
I'd say "Keep Watchin'" though it's so well-hidden! Had the volume way up on my headphones! As for BACK, I always got the impression that he was MJ, the anger he expressed wasn't a surprise to me, I know some have said MJ didn't talk like that, but I think that's the point. People only knew the image that was created.
Yes, indeed. I remember Lisa saying that in private he is very different than what people see, she said something like "people would be surprised to see he doesn't talk on a high voice all the time, that he swears and acts like that".
People really don't know him as the man Michael. I am absolutely sure he's very different than what he let people see. People think they know every detail about him. They do not.
-
To me it sounds like"keep watchin" too.
-
I think he's just skatting - as he often does, with a definite 'ch' sound.
-
truth you read the whole blog post didn't you?
MJ appears to be doing something on the MJJC site. Perhaps punking them has been planned for a long time. He said "this forum [MJJC] serves it's purpose well" shortly after arriving on the scene (2006).
Maybe they are supposed to be involved for a reason. There's seems to be some manipulation going on there, with Admin and deletion of hoax related comments. They are being led along. The information they are allowed to discuss there is being controlled for some reason. Remember, MJJC is owned by someone close to the estate.
Between back's posts, the connections MJJC has, the Breaking News controversey and subsequent estate/sony statements and the family twitter war all enraging the fan community, causing them to fight bitterly within the ranks... something is going on here.
(Ps. some may not realize, many MJJC members assumed back was MJ and discussed it openly on the boards, so in order for back to continue posting post 6/25/09, he HAD to address the Murray/Murder/MJ is Dead thing and comment accordingly as a "non-believer" else it would have looked suspicious and people might wonder. This caused anyone who had suspicions before to change their mind and accept that back had never been MJ after all. Obviously, MJJC intends to remain hoax-talk free and hoax-thought free as well. Again, indicating an agenda.)
OK, I'll just get in here again to say THANK YOU for this info. I've never been a follower of or poster on MJJC (only read BACK's posts when they were posted and discussed on this forum), and didn't know much about MJJC, its history, or the fact that hoax talk is prohibited over there. Very interesting. You've truly offered a possible explanation for BACK's posts after 6/25/2009... But in this case it means that BACK is doing some manipulating, as you said.
-
truth you read the whole blog post didn't you?
MJ appears to be doing something on the MJJC site. Perhaps punking them has been planned for a long time. He said "this forum [MJJC] serves it's purpose well" shortly after arriving on the scene (2006).
Maybe they are supposed to be involved for a reason. There's seems to be some manipulation going on there, with Admin and deletion of hoax related comments. They are being led along. The information they are allowed to discuss there is being controlled for some reason. Remember, MJJC is owned by someone close to the estate.
Between back's posts, the connections MJJC has, the Breaking News controversey and subsequent estate/sony statements and the family twitter war all enraging the fan community, causing them to fight bitterly within the ranks... something is going on here.
(Ps. some may not realize, many MJJC members assumed back was MJ and discussed it openly on the boards, so in order for back to continue posting post 6/25/09, he HAD to address the Murray/Murder/MJ is Dead thing and comment accordingly as a "non-believer" else it would have looked suspicious and people might wonder. This caused anyone who had suspicions before to change their mind and accept that back had never been MJ after all. Obviously, MJJC intends to remain hoax-talk free and hoax-thought free as well. Again, indicating an agenda.)
OK, I'll just get in here again to say THANK YOU for this info. I've never been a follower of or poster on MJJC (only read BACK's posts when they were posted and discussed on this forum), and didn't know much about MJJC, its history, or the fact that hoax talk is prohibited over there. Very interesting. You've truly offered a possible explanation for BACK's posts after 6/25/2009... But in this case it means that BACK is doing some manipulating, as you said.
I agree, very useful information. We know MJ has done some manipulating of the media, so I could see this kind of manipluation being justifiable as well.
-
In the TII trailer he whispers keep-a-watch-in' to match the 4 sounds in the original Billie Jean intro.
So if you keep watchin' right to the end of TII you see the BAM footage, you see the dedication to the children after the BAM footage - dedication belongs at the beginning of a movie or beginning of credits rolling, not at the end of the credits where 99% of audiences will never see it because they've left the cinema or switched off their DVDs.
But what's even more interesting is that if you keep watchin' for a few seconds longer - you will see MJ's feet appear walking on the stage and going into his signature Billie Jean spin taken from the intro to Moonwalker, but with ONE difference --> Michael Jackson is heard LAUGHING in the TII version.
-
FrenchBraid, where did you get your signature (clip) from? It appears to be from "Blood on the Dance Floor", but I just watched the extended version of that music video and realized that that particular clip you have in your sig, with ALL its elements, doesn't match the music video. There's something about it that's different...
-
FrenchBraid, where did you get your signature (clip) from? It appears to be from "Blood on the Dance Floor", but I just watched the extended version of that music video and realized that that particular clip you have in your sig, with ALL its elements, doesn't match the music video. There's something about it that's different...
Sorry can't remember where I found this - I uploaded it nearly a year ago. There are a few different mixes of BOTDF on YouTube.
-
I think that BACK is MJ, he doesn't act like the Michael Jackson we know but it kinda reminds me of Randy when he was talking about the album and the greedy people around Michael on his twitter. He was really defensive of Michael and what about Taj his been very vocal. So I think that it has to be one of the family members but I don't think Michael told Randy about the hoax and I don't think he told some of his family until very later.
Remember the interview with Oprah. Oprah said that LMP said that Michael loved his mother more than anything in the world and would do anything for her and so BACK getting defensive of K is like Michael protecting/defending his mother because he loved her so much.
Also in the TII trailer I think he says "keep watching" but more with the tune like keepa watching.
-
So if you keep watchin' right to the end of TII you see the BAM footage, you see the dedication to the children after the BAM footage - dedication belongs at the beginning of a movie or beginning of credits rolling, not at the end of the credits where 99% of audiences will never see it because they've left the cinema or switched off their DVDs.
I went to see This is it with my sister and a friend, twice, I still remember it was on 30th of October and 1st of November. The first time, we were some of the ones who got out before the BAM scene. The ending with all the credits on the screen lasted too long, we waited to see if there's something else but as it was very long we said "well, let's go then..." and we went out before the credits ended and we went to the bathroom there to fix my face and everything and when we went out of the bathroom we passed by the theatre hall and heard Michael talking and we thought "Oh my god, the movie didn't end?!" and we rushed in and didn't reach to get a chair or anything and we remained on the stairs watchin' and it was just the end. I didn't catch anything but the final word, and then the lights went out. I was so angry I missed it, I didn't know what I missed, if it was important or not (I wasn't a believer at that time).
Then, on 1st of November, I said I stay after the whole credits to see what was that, and so we did, and I didn't take that part as a message, because we weren't believers at that time. But when we went out we really didn't understand why did they put that scene after all the credits, after everything, when most of the people would have already gone.I simply found it strange and I didn't know why.
But what's even more interesting is that if you keep watchin' for a few seconds longer - you will see MJ's feet appear walking on the stage and going into his signature Billie Jean spin taken from the intro to Moonwalker, but with ONE difference --> Michael Jackson is heard LAUGHING in the TII version.
Exactly. It's the same LOGO as in the beginning of Moonwalker, but here it's at the END, and only in TII he LAUGHS. That is really strange, because why would they put his laugh there if it wasn't in the original logo?
-
So if you keep watchin' right to the end of TII you see the BAM footage, you see the dedication to the children after the BAM footage - dedication belongs at the beginning of a movie or beginning of credits rolling, not at the end of the credits where 99% of audiences will never see it because they've left the cinema or switched off their DVDs.
I went to see This is it with my sister and a friend, twice, I still remember it was on 30th of October and 1st of November. The first time, we were some of the ones who got out before the BAM scene. The ending with all the credits on the screen lasted too long, we waited to see if there's something else but as it was very long we said "well, let's go then..." and we went out before the credits ended and we went to the bathroom there to fix my face and everything and when we went out of the bathroom we passed by the theatre hall and heard Michael talking and we thought "Oh my god, the movie didn't end?!" and we rushed in and didn't reach to get a chair or anything and we remained on the stairs watchin' and it was just the end. I didn't catch anything but the final word, and then the lights went out. I was so angry I missed it, I didn't know what I missed, if it was important or not (I wasn't a believer at that time).
Then, on 1st of November, I said I stay after the whole credits to see what was that, and so we did, and I didn't take that part as a message, because we weren't believers at that time. But when we went out we really didn't understand why did they put that scene after all the credits, after everything, when most of the people would have already gone.I simply found it strange and I didn't know why.
But what's even more interesting is that if you keep watchin' for a few seconds longer - you will see MJ's feet appear walking on the stage and going into his signature Billie Jean spin taken from the intro to Moonwalker, but with ONE difference --> Michael Jackson is heard LAUGHING in the TII version.
Exactly. It's the same LOGO as in the beginning of Moonwalker, but here it's at the END, and only in TII he LAUGHS. That is really strange, because why would they put his laugh there if it wasn't in the original logo?
Because...It was a touchstone, an anchor, for the rough sailing to follow, to keep his fans RIGHT SIDE UP...He was trying to tell anyone waiting for some sign of LIFE from him, that not only is he alive, but he is being silly, hiding from us, TEMPORARILY ---like Hide & Seek...it was to belay ALL fears from the crap we had been and would be hearing about his drugged up death and/ or murder!
This laugh was only for his fans, personally, as nothing else in the movie quite was...The only ones who would KNOW it wasn't on the original "magic dust, sparkly feet" film, would be US!! :D :D 8-)
In fact, it was the only thing in the movie that WAS SPECIFICALLY, secretly,(Now, THAT's LOVE!! ;) ) for his fans, as he said TII would be...I posted this before, but, as soon as I heard him LAUGH, it told me everything I needed to know: I knew he was in control, and everything was cool. :lol: :D It made my DAY :!: :!: :D
-
FrenchBraid
But what's even more interesting is that if you keep watchin' for a few seconds longer - you will see MJ's feet appear walking on the stage and going into his signature Billie Jean spin taken from the intro to Moonwalker, but with ONE difference --> Michael Jackson is heard LAUGHING in the TII version.
:o I don't recall this discussed about before, so it's interesting. When I first saw it in the theatre I was focusing on the BAM part. I don't think Michael has ever/could ever laugh while doing his spin. So the laugh tells me he is from the outside observing, in control. Kenny or Sony would have no reason to insert the laugh. It reminds me of Michael chuckling to himself after Liberian Girl, when he says, "Okay everybody, that's the wrap!" Also in his song, "Leave Me Alone", he sings, "who's laughing" many times. Indeed who? MJ of course! :lol:
('Cause There's A Time When
You're Right)
(And You Know You Must
Fight)
Who's Laughing Baby, Don't
You Know
(And There's The Choice That
We Make)
(And This Choice You Will
Take)
Who's Laughin' Baby
-
I did not have the time to read all of your posts here...so I might say something that's already been said.
I read somewhere that Murray was James Brown's doctor too?
So it could be Back's /Michael's revenge/sadness over Murray...Murray can BE a disastrous doctor that should be imprisoned for his acts of "malpraxis"(malpractice).
-
foreverking:
No one has yet offered a possible answer to my question:
If BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"? I don't believe in blind faith, or in disregarding everything that doesn't fit the hoax idea or our ideas of who TS or BACK or other people & things are... I try to stay objective (as much as I can) and notice when something supports the hoax AND when something doesn't.
I understand that Michael/BACK wouldn't necessarily say "Mike's alive" or "I believe in the hoax", but why make a post calling Murray a murderer? As I said, BACK didn't need to post at all, or to talk about Murray at all.
We can ask the same questions about Randy too, don't you think? Randy accuses Murray and he also gave the names like Sony-AEG, Kenny Ortega and blamed them for his brother's "death". But like Teddy Riley wrote: "Michael lives for contraversy". Probably Back is very well aware of the hoax and giving out some clues about the hoax BUT intentionally he writes about Murray as a murderer and expects us to READ BTW THE LINES. So it depends on you which part to get. Who knows. :)
-
To me it sounds like"keep watchin" too.
To me it sounds like "Keep on watchin".