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 - CantGetEnoughMJ
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
16
« on: July 23, 2010, 10:05:19 AM »
With extra makeup and photo touch-ups could his look at 50 here, match the look below.
[attachment=1:1o2envr6]29cuqvq[1].jpg[/attachment:1o2envr6][attachment=0:1o2envr6]tumblr_l4forzIy1n1qbz69po1_500[1].jpg[/attachment:1o2envr6]
IMO, no.
This photo is, to me, taken either far back and heavily photoshopped or it's a doll/mannequin/dead person. The make-up and styling are very artistic and all, but the mood of the image is very cold and heartless. Like a ghost, nothing warm...
I want to stay open-minded, so I entertained the possibility that someone posed MJ's lifeless body for those pics, but that would mean that his family would have lent his body to a photographer and authorized it. There's no way Katherine or the rest of his family would allow someone to do that. I know one of you is going to say that, "maybe someone borrowed MJ's lifeless body from Forest Lawn or the morgue and took the posed photos of him without the knowledge or consent of his family". Can you imagine the legal implications of doing something like that? And even if someone was crazy enough to take that risk, I think the photos would fetch more money if they say they are photos of a dead Michael. After all, he's worth more dead than alive, right? In short, there's no way those photos are of a dead Michael. So then I entertained the possibility that it's a wax mannequin of Michael, and that sounds more feasible than the dead body option. However, some of the photos feature Michael with his eyes open. To my knowledge, you cannot open and close wax statues' eyes like a doll. They are fixed. Before someone says, "well then they had two wax mannequins, one for the photos with his eyes closed and one for the photos with his eyes open"....I don't think so. The trouble and cost of doing even one wax mannequin this convincing would probably exceed whatever money they could fetch for the photos, unless they later use the mannquins for something else, like for a wax museum. To me, those photos are of living, breathing, beautiful Michael. Of course this is all my reasoning and personal opinion because some of you will not change your minds no matter what I think, and that's cool too.
17
« on: July 22, 2010, 04:40:39 PM »
MJ seemed extra anxious and nervous at the O2. Maybe he was hesitant about having to lie to his fans, especially on national TV. I do believe it was the real MJ.
18
« on: July 22, 2010, 04:29:49 PM »
Wow, I wish I had as much time on my hands as those people....multiple accounts on twitter, myspace, facebook, hyves, youtube....sheesh! I barely have enough time to be HERE.
19
« on: July 22, 2010, 04:04:32 PM »
“I feel Michael everywhere,” he told People magazine. “I know Michael's spirit is so much alive. He's guiding me ... us to just keep things going and keep things the way they're supposed to be.”
I love this part. Of course Michael is guiding them in keeping the hoax going and playing their parts the way they should.
20
« on: July 22, 2010, 02:58:49 PM »
Nice video. I didn't know there was a full moon the night before Michael "died". Is the author saying it was a blue moon? I recall that on the night of the funeral there was a full orange moon as well. I like the connections the author is making to that photo with the blue circle around MJ's eye. I've been trying to figure out the significance of that circle and it doesn't seem to make sense, until now. It's possible that this video is on the right path. I wonder if the maker of this video would be interested in finding out about the lie we discovered regarding the date of the photo. It's on this thread: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
21
« on: July 22, 2010, 02:17:20 PM »
Well, that's weird. If Michael wanted to have a photo for the third millennium, wouldn't that mean it would need to be taken in the third millennium? That statement lends even more credibility to the photos being taken later than 1999:
3rd millennium: In contemporary history, the third millennium is a period of time that commenced on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 3000, of the Gregorian calendar. This is the third period of one thousand years in the Common Era.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
That's a very good point, PJ. Why not just wait to have the picture taken in 2001. Even December 31st, 2000. But a whole two years before the beginning of the 3rd millenium (if that's even true)? I don't think so.
22
« on: July 22, 2010, 02:09:21 PM »
This guy says that Michael wanted to have a photo of him for the third millennium ...
Then why not to have used it when he was still alive ... 
And why to have kept these photos secret for more than 10 years ...
Something very bizarre isn't it ?
Yes, very strange. Unless Michael did not like the pictures and asked that they not be released. But now that Michael's not around, they decided to release them and sell them. More people trying to cash in on his "death". Still doesn't explain why they're lying about the date of the photoshoot. That bugs me to no end.
23
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:57:24 AM »
I wonder if any one of us is brave enough to contact Arno Bani through his Facebook or e-mail and ask him to confirm when he took the photos. I don't speak French 8-)
24
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:24:16 AM »
Michael is perfection without whatever he's doing to him in this art. That's right!! I can live with the effect, but that blue circle around his eye just kills it for me.
25
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:18:50 AM »
I think Johnny would be perfect for that role, as long as he doesn't have to sing.
Off topic, I think Michael would have been the perfect person to play Willie Wonka in the remake. Johnny was good too, but Michael would have been perfect.
26
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:05:50 AM »
Since this thread has died, I posted my last observation on a separate thread. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
27
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:01:36 AM »
I want to see a photo of Arno Bani! I have found no site that has definate proven photos of this guy. I see his art, read all about him but I want photos and not someone guessing oh that might be him or questioning if a photo is him. I want good photos of HIM. It seems he's as elusive as Murray. Just click on this link, and then click on English or French, then click on "Bio". His picture is on there....funny-looking dude. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
28
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:57:02 AM »
That photo is sooo cold, just something about it. Is it the only one of it's kind or is there a series of poses? I hate to say it but it's like he is dead and someone had the nerve to pose him and photograph him. Photoshopped or not there is something way too private about it and that is NOT an MJ hair style that he ever wore day to day. Don't worry dear, there are other images from that photoshoot, including ones where his eyes are open and unphotoshopped. Trust me, he's alive in these pics. As for his hairstyle, it's just pulled back in a ponytail, he's done that for other photos. ![]()
29
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:36:31 AM »
I work with photography and Photoshop for several years.
One of the unique ability to prepare images
for printing by adding on them date, time or comment. Date, time or
comment will be visible on the printed image so you will always be
able to tell when it was taken!
Usually the photographer puts in the photo the year in which it is made.
Image is processed with a Photoshop . Rather looks like a 3D but it is not.
For example I will give you another photograph of Michael worked with Photoshop, which has almost the same effect.
![]()
On the left is not processed with Photoshop
![]()
Excuse me for my English but it is not my native language :oops: Thank you for your input Mst1. So to confirm, you're saying that you can put any date you want on the photo, but it is customary to stamp the photo with the date it was taken. That makes the most sense to me because, for example, if I was a collector of MJ pictures, I would want to know when any particular photo was shot, not when it was printed. The photo could be reprinted 10 different times over a span of 50 years with a different date stamped on each reprint, but the date that really matters is the date that the picture was taken, imo. I find it interesting that Arno or his people lied about the date of the photoshoot even though they have timelines readily available in his bio. I mean, if you're going to lie about something like this, at least cover your ass by not posting information that could blow your cover, duh. This makes me think that there's a clue somewhere in this story. What's the significance of 1999, for instance.
30
« on: July 21, 2010, 05:34:50 PM »
Souza wrote:
Not strange. He just realized that it's impossible to post something in 2008 while you created the website in 2010...[/quote]
So, it is possible to manipulate the date of a posting? I always thought the posting date could not be changed.
|
Show Posts
