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 - chloead505
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
« on: March 11, 2011, 04:50:00 AM »
A like everything !
What a beautiful video.
How can you say there is no Michael's magic ? What did you expect ?
He puts on the spotlight a very good dancer, she represents the fans.
The vidéo is fresh, the job is given to us, no MJ. 
There a soooo many ways I could say there is no magic (for me)...with an added disclaimer of this is only my opinion and how I feel. Feel free to disagree.
First, though this young lady is a fabulous dancer, she does nothing to make me believe the storyline. I don't feel a connection. Second, she dances the choreography but I don't feel like she and the music are one and the same. Only MJ could BE the music. You know what I mean? Third, I didn't feel compelled to watch her or it. When MJ videos from 20 years ago come on my tv, I can't look away. When Billie Jean, Thriller, Bad, etc. come on the radio I can't turn it off. In 20 years do you think you will still care about how good a dancer she is? I won't.
There are other reasons but they all boil down to the same common denominator: making me FEEL something. A connection almost supernatural that casts a spell on you and won't let you go, a power that holds you and binds you to him and it. You know, the very definition of MAGIC. MJ=Magic
As for what I expected...not much and everything. lol
Anyway, everyone is entitled to find their own magic. I just didn't find mine there. JMO
I couldn't agree more. I am very disappointed, both with the vid and the sound - just wrong! To me it looks like a commercial/promo video/trailer kind of thing. It's a very good vid with great dancers but totally nowhere near to what MJ deserves. It's the perfect proof of MJ's talent though - a talent that this vid misses so badly that it just makes me sad.
2
« on: March 07, 2011, 06:34:42 AM »
Well I suggest everyone looks at Chriss Angel's last tweets: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login Really have not had much of a break at all. Been working on exciting things 2 b announced soon... BeLIEve starts this Tuesday 7pm & 9:30pm:) about 11 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® The Revolution Is Coming This Summer... More Info Soon! about 11 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® This Summer....See you in July, anyone? :lol:
3
« on: March 06, 2011, 01:18:45 PM »
He's got pretty good moves, but looks NOTHING like MJ in his face and also to me he seems considerably shorter than MJ, or than whoever was in TII.
4
« on: March 06, 2011, 12:13:53 PM »
I did consider that,they are massive feathers but I guess my overall point is,why was someone taking pics from the back of the entourage,just seems pointless since there were better shots that came after,facing them.
But the word believe was already connected to him because of Chris Angel and he uses it himself when talking about believing in yourself etc.
You can't believe/think that Michael is some super mastermind behind all this and there were clues earlier than 2009 or even before that,or at the 02,and in interviews he gave about being involved in film and it being his future,Sony using the new make believe campaign and then think 5weeks before June 25th think he wouldn't be giving clues away and things.
Well you can,but that doesn't make any sense to me sorry :/
I hope that made sense,I do respect you're opinions, you know this Britney Spears recommends: New Fragrance by Britney - BELIEVE (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login) "The greatest freedom is to believe in yourself" LOL. I wonder where she got this phrase? She isnt exactly a philosopher is she?
5
« on: March 06, 2011, 12:09:02 PM »
Hmmm, this is a tough one. I would have to say how would Michael and the kids know that we
would coin the phrase "Believe" after June 25th?? Even if the hoax was pre-planned how would
they know what phrases and words we would use to describe ourselves (believers) or to desribe
that we "Believe" Michael is still alive. They had no way of knowing that.
So I would have to say that Blanket probably just woke up that day and put his Criss' Angel
Believe hat on backwards. This is very simple. See, MJ didn't know we would phrase "believe", he didn't know we would call ourselves "believers". He didnt have to know it. He did it himself. WE didn't know it, he planted those words in our heads. He released all those things and dots for us to connect. LOL. How could anyone doubt about this? If you want to believe MJ didn't know about the "believe" ingredient of the hoax, then you can not even believe the hoax.
6
« on: March 03, 2011, 04:33:27 PM »
Ehm, excuse me...The tapes were never lost, in the first place. Either they were there all along or 'someone' released them. But dont believe for one second they actually got lost. LOL
I agree wholeheartedly. Never “lost” excpet to those who were “looking” for them. 
Absolutely! Btw, they're probably still looking 
7
« on: March 03, 2011, 04:30:33 PM »
This is just as absurd as anything else. First he hires a new lawyer. Second, this new lawyer allegedly has a personal conflict. Total BS by the way. And third, it turns out CM doesnt have money for ANY lawyer.
Oh God, when is this comedy gonna end?
8
« on: March 03, 2011, 04:21:13 PM »
Ehm, excuse me...The tapes were never lost, in the first place. Either they were there all along or 'someone' released them. But dont believe for one second they actually got lost. LOL
9
« on: March 03, 2011, 04:07:29 PM »
Screen shot of which one? Not important, just to show where I can find that date, because I can't seem to find it.
I too can see it clearly from Android, it's in plain sight on everyone's profile page.
10
« on: March 02, 2011, 11:35:28 AM »
Without prejudice to anything anyone has mentioned in this thread...
How on earth could someone NOT recognize MJ on that pic, even if a great part of his face is obscured?
Either the paramedics are in on it, or they didnt see MJ's dead body or this pic is fake. Or, in fact, all three options are correct :-D Which is applying pure logic to the hoax. If this is a hoax, they must be correct. Am I making sense? LOL
11
« on: March 01, 2011, 04:50:24 PM »
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life." I'm sure Michael's got a lot of surprises up his sleeve for us all!
chloead505, I hope you will stay with us throughout the trial, so we will be able to catch all the humor/satire that MJ has so cleverly woven into the details and plot. Yet it will all appear so serious and to the non-believers a heart breaking fight for justice. It's art and it's all for L.O.V.E! The best is yet to come!
I most certainly will stay, although my job is obviously quite time-demanding. But I cant wait for more feeds from Absurdistan :-D
12
« on: February 28, 2011, 05:49:41 PM »
I've been reading but haven't joined in this thread before as it very quickly became way too technical for me to follow! I haven't a clue what's possible with computer wizardry in the field of photo alterations etc, other than it appears anything is possible. I'm from the simpler era when 'the camera didn't lie'!
Looking at the wider aspect, with TS implying we should be building actual proof that MJ is NOT dead, it makes me wonder if maybe the lawyers in Murray's trial could do with doing similar: prosecution - prove he's actually DEAD before accusing Murray of anything, defence - prove he's NOT! Proving a negative fact is almost impossible. There are easy ways to prove MJ is alive - e.g. the CCTV tapes that were supposed to be lost :-D
13
« on: February 28, 2011, 05:42:43 PM »
Well but 'sharing evidence' sounds weird, whatever it means in reality. Sharing records on witnesses isnt sharing evidence in the narrow sense cause in case of witnesses, evidence = their testimony,that is the contents of it. So sharing evidence would mean telling prosecution what the witness is going to say/testify. At least they should use proper terms.
Besides maybe MJ is THE witness, no wonder they dont want to share! :-D
14
« on: February 28, 2011, 04:47:51 PM »
This is different state and trial, but gives some overview of evidence sharing ideas.
SJC says defense must share evidence
Some lawyers warn change is radical
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 15, 2006
A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that prosecutors are entitled to know before trial what evidence criminal defense lawyers plan to use to cross-examine the state's witnesses, a decision prosecutors say levels the playing field but defense lawyers argue subverts the judicial system.
By a 4-3 vote, the state's high court decided that trial judges can order defense lawyers to share evidence they have gathered and intend to use to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including witness statements, documents, and recordings.
Under rules of evidence across the country, prosecutors already have to turn over the findings of criminal investigations to defense lawyers. But most states, including Massachusetts, have required defendants to provide the prosecution only with evidence their own witnesses were expected to testify about, not what the defense had learned to challenge government witnesses.
That is unfair, the high court said, even if the state typically has greater resources than defendants.
''The role of cross-examination, and the existence of an imbalance, should not override the right of the people and the victims of crimes to have the evidence evaluated by a truly informed trier of fact," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling drew sharply worded dissents from Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Justice Robert J. Cordy, who were joined by Justice Roderick L. Ireland.
Marshall said the decision deprives defense lawyers of one of their most potent and constitutionally protected weapons: the ability to surprise a prosecution witness during cross-examination with evidence that shakes his or her testimony.
''This is not 'trial by ambush,' " she wrote. ''To the contrary, it permits the jury to assess for themselves the reliability of a witness's memory or whether an accuser is truthful."
Yesterday's decision, she added, ''all but guarantees constitutional challenges in the future."
Cordy, a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was a ''sea change" that put Massachusetts at odds with federal courts and courts in most states. Invoking the phrase of a notable legal scholar, Cordy said the ruling will disable the ''greatest legal engine" ever invented to uncover the truth: cross-examination of witnesses.
In recent years, courts across the country have updated their rules of criminal procedure to require more sharing of information before trial. In Massachusetts, for example, rules require defendants to disclose alibi defenses and defenses based on mental illness to ensure that both sides will be able to prepare for key issues during a trial.
In the case that the court ruled on yesterday, the court said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford had the authority to order Patrick John Durham, a murder defendant represented by a court-appointed lawyer, to turn over information gathered by a defense investigator to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (Durham pleaded guilty to manslaughter while his lawyer appealed the ruling, making the issue moot to his case.)
The majority of the high court said that the rules of evidence supported Botsford's ruling and disputed Durham's lawyer's argument that it violated federal and state constitutional protections, including the right to confront one's accusers.
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley applauded the ruling. He said it puts prosecutors on equal footing with defense lawyers, who often seek to catch witnesses off guard with prior statements they have made that contradict their testimony.
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."
He said the ruling will make the courts more open and fair and that his prosecutors will now ask for such evidence before trials.
But several defense lawyers predicted the decision will radically change the dynamics of criminal trials. Prosecutors, they said, now have the green light to share evidence with witnesses who will then change their stories before they are cross-examined.
''If you think of cross-examination like a test for the witness, this is like giving the witness the questions in advance of the test," said James L. Sultan, a lawyer for Durham who appeared before the high court.
Peter Krupp, who submitted a brief on behalf of two associations of criminal defense lawyers, said the ruling will make it harder for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution witnesses.
For instance, he said, in a murder case he worked on, a witness who testified for the state claimed he saw the defendant on a certain day, but Krupp confronted him on the stand with a record that proved he had been wrong.
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Exactly my point. That is why this is not commonly acceptable. It goes against the basic principle of consitutional rights - mainly to do with right to just trial.
15
« on: February 28, 2011, 04:43:59 PM »
Why is this subject so important?Isn't the " reason " more important?
OR is it that the photo is NOT fake?
I think that after 20 months we all know the reasons and are very aware of it. I have been looking at parts of the picture I haven't noticed before and I think TS' point is that he wants us to take a closer look at details like that, to build actual proof that Mike is not dead, or at least that stuff like this is fake. This way it is easier to explain and show to non-believers. Now there are hundreds of theories on the board and we all have our own 'proofs' that stuff is fake, this could get us all on the same page. Facts instead of theories. Piece by piece.
I don't think that proving this picture fake (which we have known sort of since long ago and what has been openly mentioned in the media) and convincing a bunch of non-believers is the point here. There are better ways to prove MJ isnt dead. So either there's a hidden agenda - that has nothing to do with the actual pic - or I am waiting for something to happen.
|
Show Posts