The Official Double Thread

[CrazyBanana]

Here the 2001 Mike and '? 2009' next to each other. Still no match.

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that those 2 are a match then you're either blind or seriously deluded.

I dont know Souza, I really believe they used double in TII, but after seeing these pics, I am not sure anymore...

maybe MJ looked different in TII becuz his curly hair!

well, same here!!
but the chin is different! cosmetic surgery?
maybe this MJ is not an imposter but that doesnt prove the others werent
i want it to be all MJ in the movie but you cant always get what you want

[ilprincipe]

The question is why did he used a double?the only reasson i can find is: maybe they didn't began filming the rehearsals on day 1 bacause then it was suposed to be a tour and when all the events that lead him to hoax his death happened there was not time enough to do the film so they used doubles because MJ was very busy doing other things ( preparing the hoax ).

Thank you for that question...I asked that some pages ago...no one can answer..because no one knows

@souza: I think the nose of Mr. X matches perfectly to the MJ 2001 pic
the same for the lips....I can't compare eyebrows or ears..both not recognizable at the pics..
so I think the doubles may  wore masks..
that would explain the nose..and lip similarity....
and although the difference of the eyes...
but I have no explanation for the different chin..

[~Souza~]

The question is why did he used a double?the only reasson i can find is: maybe they didn't began filming the rehearsals on day 1 bacause then it was suposed to be a tour and when all the events that lead him to hoax his death happened there was not time enough to do the film so they used doubles because MJ was very busy doing other things ( preparing the hoax ).

Thank you for that question...I asked that some pages ago...no one can answer..because no one knows

@souza: I think the nose of Mr. X matches perfectly to the MJ 2001 pic
the same for the lips....I can't compare eyebrows or ears..both not recognizable at the pics..
so I think the doubles may  wore masks..
that would explain the nose..and lip similarity....
and although the difference of the eyes...
but I have no explanation for the different chin..

And add to that fact that he looked like this in 2009 as well:



Whatever he looked like back in 2001, he sure looked like his old self again in these 2005 & 2009 pictures.

[Le Papillon Bleu]

Not even here he looks like 2009 or 97 just look at the lips how thin they are....make-up does the tricks..and also the visits to Klein. :?

[frogh777]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

[the arabian nights]

Not even here he looks like 2009 or 97 just look at the lips how thin they are....make-up does the tricks..and also the visits to Klein. :?

he looks happy - it makes all the difference

[the_gloved_one]

he looks the same to me :| i don't think we will ever agree on this doubles thing due to our varying opinions and the way we  perceive things

[MJ_92_Believe]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

Not a chance.

[kingofmystery]

Perhaps a little break from this thread would be helpful to everyone.  And then it can be revisited with fresh eyes?

Here's something to break up the tension for those who need it.  
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[~Souza~]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

Well, since Sony already admitted the audio is from 2007, who knows how old some of the shots are.

But that still doesn't explain why he changed height, shoulders, bodyshape and facial structure all in one movie.

[Loes]

IMHO this is just Michael, but the photo is photoshopped to make him look more gorgious than he already is ...  

[the arabian nights]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

Well, since Sony already admitted the audio is from 2007, who knows how old some of the shots are.

But that still doesn't explain why he changed height, shoulders, bodyshape and facial structure all in one movie.

well even earlier the this is it song was done what 18 years ago- funny how you can make millions on old material :lol:

[frogh777]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

Well, since Sony already admitted the audio is from 2007, who knows how old some of the shots are.

But that still doesn't explain why he changed height, shoulders, bodyshape and facial structure all in one movie.

Well there are for sure doubles in TII, but we are comparing wrong picture!!
the 3rd MJ is MJ. It is not the double. doubles are the ''mj's'' with glasses on. To cover their eyes! U cant lie to the EYES!

[the arabian nights]

Maybe TII isnt from 2009?

Well, since Sony already admitted the audio is from 2007, who knows how old some of the shots are.

But that still doesn't explain why he changed height, shoulders, bodyshape and facial structure all in one movie.

Well there are for sure doubles in TII, but we are comparing wrong picture!!
the 3rd MJ is MJ. It is not the double. doubles are the ''mj's'' with glasses on. To cover their eyes! U cant lie to the EYES!

have you got any stills

[pyt777]

by iMJacksonfaN » Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:01 pm
~Souza~ wrote:
iMJacksonfaN wrote:One picture is bended, one is straight in the legs.

And these pictures are from YouTube, the quality is not the same. A blind man could even see that.


No ToM, a even a blind man can see that those are not the same persons!



That's what YOU THINK AND SEE BECAUSE YOU THINK SO

I agree with Tom here, if you are wearing saggy jeans and ur knees are bended, then of course the jeans will appear tighter from the front, perhaps a view from the back will show that the jeans are still a tad bigger?  Also of course someone will appear shorter if they are bending.

Dancing_Machine wrote:
misha86 wrote:
Dancing_Machine wrote:]

Do you have rock solid proof it's isn't Michael?
Unless you have that, you can't assume what appears to be Michael doesn't know how to dance.


do you have proof it is him? there are mulitple pictures of him with different facials structures and yet the only "reason" for this is lighting  


For me the proof is that I see Michael Jackson on those pics. Common sense doesn't lie.
It's not realistic at all to claim it's somebody else.

Do you have proof that those are doubles?  

It really disturbs me when you guys don't have proof those are doubles and then make fun off his appearance by saying it can't be Michael because the cleft "looks like an ass" and call it investigating. That really disrespectful to Michael.
I don't think there were any doubles but if you want to examine wether there were doubles it can be done with respect for Michael. There's no need to make fun off HIS features!

by ilprincipe » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:06 pm
KeepTheFaith wrote:Wait a minute! where is this 3. picture from? it is not in TII as i remember, so it could be edited.
 

and all Michael btw

you are all confusing me...
I already agreed that no. 3 is NOT MJ..
I think this person needs a name. I will call him "froggy" because of this special eyes...
no. 3 is the same double like in the Smooth Criminal scene of TII....
same eyes....
but what's the conclusion...
there may be a lot of doubles...what does this mean for the hoax?

I agree with DM here, whether or not these men are doubles, I don't think it is appropriate for anyone to make comments such as "looks like ass" or name calling such as "froggy" simply because one is of the impression that it is not Mike. Remember, that to show disrespect for anyone is to show disrespect for yourself.

I am not of the impression that Mike used doubles in the film, I think that many of the differences can be explained by lighting, angles, and weight fluctuations as well as make-up and hair style...as a person who experiences frequent fluctuations in weight, I have experienced these differences (apparent change in the shape of my face- yes I kno it sounds strange, but it is true. I generally have a heart- shaped face, but I have seen pictures where I appear to have an oval or EVEN an elongated shaped face!) Because of this, I have a fear of taking pictures because I think I never look like myself or even look the same from picture to picture. Another example is my nose, if my head is tilted down and to the left I appear to have a str8 nose, however, if I turn a little to the right with head tilted back...much broader...I say all of that to say that we should be careful in our "analysis", because you never know...those "doubles"/humans with feelings could be reading as well...and after all they would only have been doing their job...