Show Posts

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 - MFFreedom

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Twitter ~ Not verified but (probably) real / Re: Joe Jackson tweets
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:47:44 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
maybe hearing it straight from the horses mouth in this way will give some believers some closure to move on. some people have grown weary. maybe Joe has too.

Is Michael is still alive? VERY interesting phrasing ... (Is) Michael is still alive. A sentence in a sentence. But like with everything.: one can read a lot into a lot. ;D

« on: February 26, 2015, 02:11:40 AM »
I have only read a few pages into this. Can't take it seriously: Why would a boy sleep in someones' bed, get molested while his family is around the corner, and repeat sleeping in this persons' room over and over and over? One COULD eventually explain that away with some psychological dependency, however, a normal reaction of a child who knows that his mother is protecting it would go to her. Maybe not speaking about the incident but it would persue his mother to take it away from that place. But he stayed!  ??? For Christ sake.  :WTF: In the LEAST, he would have asked his mother to make sure he'd not have to go back into such a 'situation'. Not even with Michael Jackson involved. So in the light of this question, one would first have to wonder about the mother: did she not notice a change in behaviour of her son the day AFTER the alleged first 'molestation'? And IF she did, what were her motivations to keep the situation going? Was she putting her aspirations above her own sons'? My take: maybe, but I don't think so = this whole story is a full blown lie.
Then we'd have to look at Wade himself: he stayed. Why did he stay? Or provocatively asked: did he enjoy 'it' so much it made him go back sleep in 'Decedents' room over and over again?! If he felt under pressure through the situation, was there no way he could have signaled his own mom about his unwanted situation? Could he have fooled his own mother by playing all happy? (Don't try to fool a mother). And more so: if he WAS molested: why didn't he come forward sooner?!
However I turn this thing, it doesn't add up, means, it's totaly BS. And as it seems this is really a true court document, I have to say that it's absolutely inacceptable to use public money to be wasted clearly on BS.

Other Odd Things / Re: My personal experiences with this hoax
« on: January 22, 2015, 04:07:51 AM »
Hi there!

I've told my experience a few times on this forum. I went to Neverland in December 2009. Only me and my friend were there, it was around 5 PM and it started to get dark. My friend stopped right at the gate because we thought noone lived there anymore anyways. Just as we got out of the car a guard came out on the other side of the gate and asked us politely to park our car away from the gate, "there's a coming and going 24/7", he said. I said surprised, "Oh, so someone lives here?!" He didn't answer but only asked us again to move our car. I said, of course, we would, but couldn't resist asking further "Well, if noone lives here why the coming and going?" He just repeated what he said before, but was always very nice. I then asked if it was ok to look around. And he said 'of course'. It was odd and I really had not expected anyone there at all. Just from the way this guard did not answer my question there was this aura of secrecy.

You have to have an SS number as soon as you work. I am from Switzerland and while I was living in the States as a student I had to apply for one in order for me to work. The status of naturalized or not is irrelevant. The question is wether your visa allows work or not. So, if Murray is really a doctor and he got his work visa by order of qualifications alone he had to get a SS number. But we have another problem: To my knowledge every SS number is connected to one legal name. If his true name in fact is another and Murray just another legalised name then it explaines the four SS-numbers. But that also means there must be in fact yet two other names that this guy goes by. In total 4 different identities. If this guy is no doctor then it leaves the question open wether he was admitted to the US through CIA or FBI ...

Neverland / Re: Colony Capital to sell Neverland
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:47:08 AM »
Hi everybody, haven't posted in a while but read your inputs regularly :-)

My 2 cents: I don't believe, the Estate ever had as much control over Neverland as they make believe. Their press statement to me is a total farce. Replace the Estates' checking zoning, building codes, etc. with Checking possibilities to get the other 50% (or so) then it adds up more to me. Add to it, that they mention checking possibilibies five years later ... a bit strange for two savy business guys they did not check into that with Tom Barack earlier ... Talking about checking building codes et al with Colony Capital is a nice try to make the mass believe they have control but hey ... bad luck. I for one believe, they are pissed, Colony Capital sells Neverland. Oops out the window the possibility to rip Neverland off. Uhm, they lose control. And IF Neverland is bought back by MJ, wow! Even a bigger fist in their face ...

Just my 2 innocent intuitive cents here.

Michael Jackson News / Re: billboard awards
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:30:49 AM »
After watching this performance I have the same initial feeling like with the O2 press conference - it's not Michael. A real good imitator but still it doesn't feel 'Michael'.
But then again ...  :screaming-7365:

This Is It / Re: A Screencap From 'This Is It'
« on: November 11, 2013, 03:46:54 AM »
Thanx, Thriller4ever. This isn't silly at all. In fact I think you hit the nail with this regarding a staging. What suprised me back then was that there weren't even a lot of 'fans' there considering the fact what a huge star Michael is. In retrospect the idea of having staged this conference makes all the more sense. If this is staged then the small size of the 'fan-crowd' is thus explained, as a small size of people is easier to control than a big crowd in this case.

TMZ Articles / Re: MJ WOULD BE 'APPALLED' At the Way I'm Treated
« on: October 31, 2013, 07:46:58 AM »
Where did the 'weight-loss' and the grey hair suddenly go ... ? TMZ: Please make up your mind about how Conrad should look ...  :thjajaja121:

The Double Theory / Re: 2 MJ's
« on: September 27, 2013, 01:26:51 AM »
Wonderful outlining of your thoughts - again. And it makes complete sense. Had to grin from side to side when reading. Almost wanting more to read ...

This is a clear clue: a mother would always remember having lost a child no matter what circumstances. For her to say she never lost a child implies clearly that she in fact never did. So there must be another brother.


AEG ~ Sony / Re: Katherine Jackson versus AEG set for trial 9-10-2012
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:34:50 AM »
Can I ask all of you, why out of all Jacksons would exactly Miss Katherine be the one sueing for money? Not claiming to know Mrs. Jackson, as I sure do not, but like I've stated many times after reading Bonnie Cox' research before it does look a bit tooooooo odd for a Mrs. Jackson to file a compensation case when she often enough has made her point clear that she is no woman of greed but a lot more attached emotionally to her children. She even said no money in the world would bring him (MJ) back (we leave that one open for spec). She is no woman going after money. That alone proves for me that this trial is a complete fabrication to discredit AEG, blame them. And not SHE filed the suit but the lawyers representing other parties interests in HER NAME. She is just dragged there - probably against her will. Sorry for being so blunt about that. But in the end all the testimonies and depositions are only entertaining (?) side dishes with little legal (if at all) weight at all, when considering others filing a suit in Mrs. Jacksons' name. We should not forget that both sides are represented by Sony affiliated lawyers as Bonnie Cox has found out through her research. She also brought up enough evidence to back up her research and I have to credit her with that. It is just too odd to be a legit trial.

@applehead & sweetangel
very good points you've made.

Don't get confused. Just look at the obvious and that alone answers quite a lot  :bearhug:

The Double Theory / Re: 2 MJ's
« on: September 23, 2013, 01:47:24 AM »
My 2 cents about possible two MJ: When BAD was released I remember I turned the album cover and the picture of 'Michael' on the back of it made me instantly say: THAT'S not Michael. I told that story a couple of years ago here already, should someone remember. My view of 2 MJs is really going far - so just have an open mind :-) And please consider: what I will write does have holes but it helps to connect new synapses. I dismissed the idea there were two MJs as it did not fit my world view AT ALL, although it took quite an amount of 'work' to buriy that thought :-) Thanks to Souza and Mo back then with their 'it take two to tango'-blog I was reminded of that moment in 1989. However. I don't believe there was a brother of Michael acting as second MJ but more so, Michaels well known ambition in show business let him bring in another 'Michael' around BAD (Pic of Michael2 smoking during BAD shoot?), at first just for PR reasons with a few pictures of MJ2 mingled into those of real MJ, maybe also because Michael knew from the beginning his role and made sure he had a plan B over years to come, but later on in turned into a much more detailled scenario to 'play' with the masses. I began to believe that it was MJ2 - not the real one - who had gotten out of realMJs control during Neverland times around 2001 and Sony took MJ2 under his control > Sony Rant?. Therefore realMJs last studio album Invincible. He knew he would have to hide at some point. I consider here the facts that realMJ was not present in Neverland very often. Almost to the degree that real MJ might have avoided Neverland and let MJ2 take over the stage there (Oprah & Co.), and also that he was not having contact with his family. After 2004/5 acquittal he left for a year. MJ2 has not the talent to make a new album, so Sony decided to keep MJ2 on a short leash > no chance for a new studio album ever again and real MJ was kept out of sight. Real MJ = actually no drug addict. MJ2 = drug addict under Sonys' control. June 25, 2009 is either Michaels' sting against all who tried to stop him and he predecessed Sonys' plans by 'dying' first, or Sony is the one who controlled June 25, 2009 from the get go by killing realMJ to make the death hoax and let MJ2 take over at some point. I sure do hope it's Michaels' sting.

As I said. It's the first time I have brought that down in writing - so it does have holes. But I think we cannot dismiss anything anymore.

EDIT: realMJ had to stand trial for what MJ2 did to discredit realMJ - maybe by order of Sony . When I look at realMJ during trial inmy minds eye now I get the feeling that Michael always thought, he should not be there before a jury.  And what about all the music that was about to come out since 2001?! We never heard anything. Sure, because realMJ was a) not available for Sony or b) he was silenced.

Info for new members / Re: List of questions about the past 4+ years
« on: September 20, 2013, 04:24:51 AM »
1.   What is your username and has it always been the same?
MFFreedom - has been since the beginning.

2.   What made you look into the hoax and when?
Heard it on the radio that MJ died on 25/6/09 and thought first he was murdered for sure. Later that day at home watching CNN and all, I saw one reporter say that three unmarked black vans were seen rushing out of Carolwood, no trace of that one anymore. Anyhow, same day while watching I thought this all was too strange, seemed too staged somehow. A week later found the first MJ death hoax forum and was relieved to see how many others felt the same way.

3.   What do you think is his reason to hoax his death?
To expose the evil. Setting the stage for the evil ones to fail.

4.   Who do you think are 100% in on the hoax?
Murray for sure, others I'm still not sure.

5.   Do you think he will come back and if yes; why, when and how? If not, why do you think he will not return?
If he set the stage, then yes. Why: for redemption purpuses. When: When all is ready: How: as MJ wishes.
I am yet 50/50 he's alive.

6.   Do you believe MJ reads the forum and do you think he posts. If yes, do you have a suspect?
He might out of curiousity, as he is curious and loves control over every aspect of his projects. No suspect. Waste of time.

7.   How long do you think this hoax was in the planning? Please explain why.
Since round 2004/5/6.

8.   Do you think we have overlooked something or haven’t examined enough and if so, what?
Research done here is simply fabulous. Murder theory
and possible cloning for resurrection reasons could be more examined. I believe today that there must be two MJs.

9.   Which part of the hoax do you like less?
The uncertainty of it at times.

10.   What do you think is the best hoax video / YouTube channel?

11.   Do you think O2 guy was MJ?

12.   What old topic should be discussed again you think?
2 Mjs

13.   If you would have to make a non-believer reconsider and you could pick 3 things to make your point, which 3 things will that be?
1. He was never officially pronounced dead
2. The two names
3. Uncommon court behavior and 'decorations'

14.   Is there anything you believe about the hoax/MJ that you rather not say because you think people will think you are crazy? If yes, please share! Hahahaha.
That there are two Michael Jacksons' and one is being used by Sony.

15.   What made you laugh the hardest the past 4 years?
Visiting an nonexisting grave site ... :elvis-1405:

16.   Anything else you want to share or questions you think should be added?
Nope. Happy.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Right, RK. And where exactly is the 'bitchin' about Paris' part?!  :icon_question:

AEG ~ Sony / Re: Katherine Jackson versus AEG set for trial 9-10-2012
« on: June 19, 2013, 02:01:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paris Jackson's deposition  :icon_e_biggrin:

If This Is Not an hoax than I don't know what it is lol :LolLolLolLol: !!!!!
OMG another Deposition,but this time from Paris Jackson in person  :icon_eek: .I really don't know what to say :icon_rolleyes: ,but it's very strange ,and you know why??  Because ,Paris talks about Grace at past tense lol,"she use to be".Well this is not true at all lol   :icon_e_biggrin: ,cause she still IS their nanny  .Here is the proof:

Katherine Jackson :Church In Woodland Hills 6/9

I dare to say that I would not trust my kid one split second with this woman Grace. She looks pretty demonic ... Paris? I doubt, she still lives with Miss Katherine, if she speaks of Grace in past tense, as Grace is flocking around Miss Katherine (to keep her on track). Like I said, I don't even believe anymore, that Miss Katherine was the one who filed the court case against AEG, but that she has to play the game FOR Sony, who filed the case in her name (using the whole Jackson family for their purpose). This case is about money and I have serious doubts Miss Katherine would even think about filing such a case.

About Kai Chase. She was hired then fired and then rehired? Yep, I can't shake this feeling off she was installed there as well. The new 'good' management fired her, 'cause they knew she was another sent little spy and wanted to protect MJ by firing her. That said 'good' management had to be removed again in order to rehire Kai to continue her job (whch is not cooking ... ) until he 'died'. Her stories about how MJ and kids were so wonderful together sound beautyful, but exaggerated, even dramatized. Highly alarming. Especially when considering her dissociated state of mind when continuing preparing lunch after Murray allegedly called for Prince. Ah, and now Kai is cooking in the Jacksons' home yet again? Grace back? Kai back? Do not trust them. They are installed.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Murray is a bit  disordered

Seriously, who lived in that house that bathroom needs a cleaning

That's exactly my point. We do NOT know if bathroom OR bedroom even are the true bath- and bedroom of Carolwood. To me this looks completely staged.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal