0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: "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.
Maybe TII isnt from 2009?
Quoteby 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 SOI 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.QuoteDancing_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!Quoteby 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 btwyou 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...
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
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 btwyou 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...
You might try the mirror image for starters. Pay extra attention to upper lip, his left side: slightly larger than other side.MATCH.
Quote from: "Raven"You might try the mirror image for starters. Pay extra attention to upper lip, his left side: slightly larger than other side.MATCH.Yep, and "cleft" is slightly disappearing.
So in that case the question would be: WHY doubles in TII? Was that his choice, or is AEG playing a sick game here?
Started by *Mo* « 1 2 ... 7 8 » Dave Dave
Started by TruthBeTold « 1 2 ... 36 37 » Other Odd Things
Started by looking4truth « 1 2 ... 1088 1089 » Back/Front discussions
Started by mykidsmum « 1 2 ... 35 36 » The Coroner and Autopsy Report
Started by *Mo* Pictures & Videos of Michael