This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - friendlikeme81
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
« on: December 23, 2014, 12:52:09 AM »
Does anyone remember at anytime if Michael ever talked about a John Mitchell?
have a look:I read "Mitchells Music" (from "Moonwalker"), so this might possibly be one of his aliases
![]()
Well how about that! It may mean something, but then again it might not but at least we have one of those 'coincidences' one more time. I'm going to watch Moonwalker during that scene and see what is said. I think this is where he is being watched.
Also, that is odd about that site mjhoax.com, I'm going to take a look at that as well.
Love you Michael!
I think "John Mitchell" is a derivation of Michael Jackson. Could be grasping at straws, but here goes and it makes a lot of sense. Lets reverse the name ok. Starting with Michael. If you change a couple of letters around and spell it MichEAL, the pronunciation is "Mitchell". I have a cousin that spells his that way and that's the way its pronounced. :icon_e_smile:
Ok, lets look at his last name. Jackson. JACKson. Anyone named John is always called Jack and vice versa. Kinda like John F. Kennedy was always called Jack Kennedy. So John would simply be the nickname for Jack. Get what I am saying? So John Mitchell, is simply Jack Michael (MichEAL)/Mitchell :WTF:
Hi, I agree, MJ has always been joggling the letters of his name to create new "aliases". My picture from Moonwalker should just show that "Mitchell" was used by Michael before.
2
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:39:25 PM »
Does anyone remember at anytime if Michael ever talked about a John Mitchell?
have a look:I read "Mitchells Music" (from "Moonwalker"), so this might possibly be one of his aliases ![]()
3
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:09:44 AM »
Could anyone here with experience of posting/deleting YouTube vids throw any light on this?
I cannot throw any light on this, but I remember well a probably similiar case back in 2010 when the American version of an episode of "The Bold and the Beautiful" with Dave Dave vanished from youtube. Shortly before I have been watching it over and over again to catch Dave's voice and compare it to MJ, but this certain episode was suddenly deleted. There still remained a German version, but Dave's original voice was gone. I remember thinking how fishy this was back then, as if someone didn't want me to do this comparison, as if it wasn't planned this way and as if someone wanted me/us to stop digging into this.
4
« on: January 10, 2014, 12:59:13 AM »
Dear friends,
please, before you resign, consider that the hoax process has changed, has moved forward, uses different ways of input and contribution now.
MJ is very very close and only scarcely hidden via his youtube and twitter accounts.
Please don't fight me, I just tell you to consider that and decide for yourself.
Best wishes to you all!
5
« on: March 27, 2012, 04:31:09 AM »
Thank you guys for your invitation to do some side to side comparison.
I think the result is pretty convincing, at least in my eyes.
Raffles is Michael, theres no doubt for me. moonwalk_/
6
« on: June 05, 2011, 10:54:18 AM »
Ah friendlikeme81, you're so modest, it is great! I sure can't do that. I'm wondering if you could do another voice comparison video of these same 2 and 2 more. Thanks so much in advance. bow/ 
At :55, the OV guide guy is talking to the "guard" but I (and many others) think it is MJ, then the gate opens and a white arm grabs the bag. Obviously from the angle the OV guy is standing, he would have a clear view of who was taking the bag but not the camera angle/our view. I think this is a total hoax video by our man.
[youtube:1md6rvfv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM8AWX2z-Go[/youtube:1md6rvfv]
At 7:11 when this idiot guy phones MJ pretending to be Akon (viewer alert), MJ talks to him for a long time and says how he questions if it's really him and even asks him test questions. Then this idiot talks about MJ molesting children, and MJ quickly switches over to the same voice as the "guard", and casket guy and ghost mayor. I really think it would be interesting and an eye-opener to the world of possibilities with MJ.
[youtube:1md6rvfv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvTCIoVyAg[/youtube:1md6rvfv] I will see if I can find some time next week to do the voice comparison you're asking for. My first impression is that the guard's voice is not the same as the Casket Guy/Major and Michael's prank voice. But it is hard to tell, because both, the guard's voice and Michael's prank voice, are distorted by the transmission via speaker and telephone. Maybe you (and some others) are right and Michael even spoke on the speaker, but I am not so sure about that. OT: Some other thing I always found odd is that the T-shirt of the guy grabbing the bag had a logo which was blanked out afterwards. [attachment=0:1md6rvfv]shirt blurred.jpg[/attachment:1md6rvfv] You see what I mean? What could be the reason for that?
7
« on: June 04, 2011, 02:19:52 PM »
Someone made a video to compare voices of casket guy to MJ as the mayor which is cool.
[youtube:2cr0fsql]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfa_JTFNHIc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube:2cr0fsql] Oh, that someone must have been a real amateur, I fear it was me  . So please forgive the creepy image quality in the some parts, it was the first (and last) video I made.  But nevertheless, I tried to show that the voices of the Casket Guy in this "promotion" and the Major in Ghosts are one and the same, and I think it works. Also dejavu's picture comparison between the typical head positions that I show in the beginning and the end suggests that the person is nobody else then Michael Jackson in disguise. Unfortunately this "discovery" didn't reach a broader audience. It is such a perfect and funny part of acting!! respect/ to Michael!
8
« on: June 01, 2011, 08:08:56 AM »
After listening again I'm not so sure about the laughs, Sure the presence of Michael at the TMZ studio seems to be too far-fetched for being truly considered. Therefore at a certain point we may start to mistrust our ears. But then again, when I hear Michael's laughter - the significant final scream inclusive, like in this fan video - I can't deny the strange similarity to the laughter about the Oompa Loompas. To me the pattern of laughter seems to be unique. The link to the fan video (from 8:10 to 8:18) You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginTMZ live video You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login (from 6:00 to 6:20, scream at 6:17) I have no idea about how to explain this "phenomenon", if it is really true. It would mean that Michael was actually filming the TMZ scene with a hand camera, in front of all the people inside the studio. This does not make much sense, since it would have required too many people to be in on the hoax - unless they were all hired by him and bound by a confidential contract like the TII dancers and staff. The other possibility that Michael was wearing a disguise is also not really convincing. So I am pretty much at a loss with this. After listening again I'm not so sure about the laughs, but when I was looking at the WW clip rag doll posted I noticed the throne in the music box theatre looked similar to Michael's, and the fancy W looks M inverted. Then after fireworks the boy first catches fire, reminding me of MJ's pepsi indident. Watch at 1:20.
Well spotted, Mjonmind, this is scary!
9
« on: March 16, 2011, 12:06:57 PM »
listen to the TMZ video at 6:17 (high scream at the end) You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Loginand then to this laugh of Michael at exactly 0:18 To me it seems to be the same scream You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginMJonmind, also Michael's laugh at the table in TII and the long loud laugh in the TMZ video are VERY similar to me, although the TMZ laugh sounds a little bit more guttural. But the pitch is the same and also the accentuation. In combination with the similarities in the way of screaming I added above, I think you might be right and it could be Michael laughing at the TMZ video.
10
« on: March 13, 2011, 01:54:03 PM »
Dave from the funeral has the same shirt, too large around his neck ( :? , he doesn't have enough money to buy a proper shirt ?), and the same tie.....
I'm afraid it is the same person from the LKS Of course both wear the same tie and a similar looking shirt, but that doesn't mean that the person at the funeral couldn't be the real DD. By the way, I thought that it was the same person for a long time too. But now I tend to think that the DaveDave sitting in the aisle at the funeral is another illusion. Nothing is what it seems to be.
11
« on: March 11, 2011, 10:55:21 AM »
I feel sure based on the eyes that DD and LKL is MJ. It is just a gut instinct that tells me something isn't right about DD being at LKL and then being able to make it to the funeral on time!
Do you know what the space of time was between those two events?
I can't give you an exact amount of time but I just remember watching the funeral coverage live on CNN and LK was talking live to DD and they were showing the live coverage of people arriving at Forest Lawn. I never seen DD arrive at FL but when I seen the photos showing him there I thought it odd that he had time to get there when he had been at LKL.
In my opinion Dave Dave at the funeral and Dave Dave at LKL are two different people. The Dave Dave at the funeral looks younger (no hunch, therefore more upright head position) and he doesn't wear such an oversized jacket. I think Michael didn't appear at his funeral as DaveDave, he managed to disappear after the LKL interview (which could have also been prerecorded, of course) and didn't risk to be exposed at his speech in front of the guests. [attachment=0:2ll9akcq]davedave cc and funeral.jpg[/attachment:2ll9akcq]
12
« on: February 22, 2011, 05:39:45 AM »
To me it doesn't look like a lighting problem and he also didn't get his teeth done, because they were perfect before and after this interview. So I think Mr. Jackson was wearing a prothesis, to create magic, an illusion, and to confuse us viewers a little bit.
[attachment=0:146uqvok]jackson teeth prothesis.jpg[/attachment:146uqvok]
13
« on: February 17, 2011, 07:00:36 AM »
I think Will.i.am was referring to this imo very interesting interview in the studio in Ireland:
yes, a VERY interesting interview, I had a good time watching it. there are so many hints in it: #Michael is called the P.T.Barnum of the recording artists #Michael's passion for film cameras and for operating behind them #Michael's ambitions for a second chapter of Thriller #Billy Bush "jokingly" proposing to collaborate in that Thriller sequel
14
« on: February 04, 2011, 01:16:09 PM »
In the authorized Visual Documentary of Adrian Grant this cover pic from 1971 is printed without even a comment concerning the age issue. I don't know what to think, but Michael really looks more like a 11-year old boy than a 13-year old boy here.
[attachment=0:1r1120up]michael_jackson-on-the-magazine-cover-of_rollingstone_1971.jpg[/attachment:1r1120up]
I can easily see how he could have been 13 here, but since the magazine came out on his birthday, the photo would have been taken sometime when he was 12 anyway. It seems to me that Michael had a growth spurt around 14. I personally know a 12 year old boy, who seriously looks like he is about 8! I also know a guy who is over 6 feet tall, but when he was a freshman is high school (ie. 14 years old), he was one of the shortest boys in his class. The tween and early teen years are a time of major physical changes, but no one knows exactly when they will occur during that time period.
Again, Michael was just a kid (and not an international superstar) when he got his first passport, and you need to show your birth certificate to get a passport. There is no way he could have gotten one without it, and there was no reason to produce a fake birth certificate just to get a passport. Why would Joe and Katherine have risked getting in trouble with the law by producing fake documents for their son?
I understand what you are saying regarding the passport. This argument is a strong one. But then, coulnd't it be that it was necessary to lie about the age for the opposite reason, to make Michael OLDER, not younger, at a certain early point of the career, because of legal restrictions for younger children (employment law, travelling, performing at certain locations and times like in Night clubs)? And that for this reason there was a huge pressure for the family to change the birth date (for getting a passport, perhaps)? Regarding the appearance of growing boys, you are right, children develop very differently, but 13 year old boys look more like a teen, not this childlike IMO. I am a teacher who was working with that age class for the last three years (aged 10/11 and today 12/13), so that's only my impression. But it's nothing to argue about, because we cannot know, so the visual proof is not significant enough. I just bought a book off ebay all about Michael from '84 and it also says Aug. 29, 1958.
Don't you love that magazine cover above!! I think if the date of birth was indeed changed, it was done during the early days of the career, see reasons above.
15
« on: February 04, 2011, 12:12:12 PM »
In the authorized Visual Documentary of Adrian Grant this cover pic from 1971 is printed without even a comment concerning the age issue. I don't know what to think, but Michael really looks more like a 11-year old boy than a 13-year old boy here.
[attachment=0:2ao4ftaj]michael_jackson-on-the-magazine-cover-of_rollingstone_1971.jpg[/attachment:2ao4ftaj]
|
Show Posts
