0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

SEHF

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 10:23:50 PM
He's trying to tell people not to believe what they see on TV and the Media by deceiving the people and using a body double to trick them.

Ohhhh kay.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

mykidsmum

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 10:24:45 PM
Souza...those 2 people you posted are both MJ...One he is out of the light and one he is under the light.  When you have the lights he had on stage...it washes out all lines and DEPTH.  You are seeing the depth in his features when he is stepping out.
You said the bone structure is not the same...well the profile doesn't lie...here it is.  Do you think maybe his "message" at O2 was simply...concerts?
as for the "jackets" I compared...I was thinking more along the lines of the legs...but I guess you didn't "see" that?
The pictures I am comparing here are from Japan music awards in 2008 and O2
the last one is that Dylan guy...he looks different too.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

~Souza~

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 10:30:21 PM
mykidsmum, I already gave up on you and I am done discussing your comparisations. Whatever I say, you are always coming up with another one that doesn't match, so save your breath and try someone else. You will never see, not even when he would tell it himself. That's it about O2 dude, 'nuff said.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 10:50:49 PM
LOL! mykidsmum you are awesome. Souza and Mo... ya'll are nuts!!! IT'S MJ! Admit it, mykidsmum's comparisons clearly show that it's him.  :lol:  :lol:
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

mykidsmum

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:07:58 PM
Souza...I've given the "proof"  If you want to believe that wasn't MJ simply because he "doesn't look like MJ" then you've got me laughing :lol:  because I have said all along...It doesn't look like "MJ".  That doesn't change the fact that it is.  MJ doesn't look like he did 2 years, 5 years, 6 years ago... He certainly doesn't look like he did in the Thriller era.  I've come across my fair share of recent photos where I've said..."what the...?"  In the span of 2009, if you look at the beginning of his Dr. visits and at the end...WOAH!  Just his nose alone went from sharp to more plump and round...his chin thinner and deeper cleft.  I had to look twice!  Ok, you may find someone with the same type of legs, or same type of hands, or similar nose (I've never seen one) but the odds of finding them ALL on one person.  If it's important to you to believe that was not MJ...fine.  it's no skin off my back... I've presented evidence and called you on yours.  I've asked you what is wrong with mine and you said they don't match...HUH?  WTH?  In what universe is that?  Unless you mean the slight variation for not finding the EXACT angle and position.  Well...I'll be working on TII pics next....:)  
Thanks to all the people who PM'ed me with support and encouragement.  I also have info from a Denture maker who worked in the theater...but that's for another thread sometime....
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

SEHF

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: "mykidsmum"
Souza...I've given the "proof"  If you want to believe that wasn't MJ simply because he "doesn't look like MJ" then you've got me laughing :lol:  because I have said all along...It doesn't look like "MJ".  That doesn't change the fact that it is.  MJ doesn't look like he did 2 years, 5 years, 6 years ago... He certainly doesn't look like he did in the Thriller era.  I've come across my fair share of recent photos where I've said..."what the...?"  In the span of 2009, if you look at the beginning of his Dr. visits and at the end...WOAH!  Just his nose alone went from sharp to more plump and round...his chin thinner and deeper cleft.  I had to look twice!  Ok, you may find someone with the same type of legs, or same type of hands, or similar nose (I've never seen one) but the odds of finding them ALL on one person.  If it's important to you to believe that was not MJ...fine.  it's no skin off my back... I've presented evidence and called you on yours.  I've asked you what is wrong with mine and you said they don't match...HUH?  WTH?  In what universe is that?  Unless you mean the slight variation for not finding the EXACT angle and position.  Well...I'll be working on TII pics next....:)  
Thanks to all the people who PM'ed me with support and encouragement.  I also have info from a Denture maker who worked in the theater...but that's for another thread sometime....

Nice work!
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:20:36 PM
I request excuses by my English because it is not my language. But you would mean to them to all who the type of O2 and TII is Michael Jackson. This demonstrated in other forums. In O2 we saw a MJ very badly combed and very thin. One does not see as MJ but is MJ. So that to send a double to the O2? In 12 years the people can change their way to interpret the things. We cannot remain with the way to dance of MJ of years ago. She can interpret of a way different his performance from the past because she is 50 years old and artistic she has matured his routine of dance and no longer he is a youngster, although we saw a MJ fortified in TII. The jackets so fit that I use in TII made me think about the Magician of Oz. I fodder that MJ queria that noticed the thin thing to him that this. MJ is a person who when changing its hairdo, its glasses, their clothes or its gestures we can confuse it with another person. They remember what can make the bad illumination in a face, a scene or a house (we can see ghosts). I am going to try to secure a photo of MJ in O2 where we can clearly see the scars him in the face. [Attachment = 0] o2mj_1.jpg [/ attachment] [attachment = 1] o2mj_2.jpg [/ attachment] [ attachment = 2] o2mj_3.jpg [/ attachment][attachment=0:3qfspjgv]Michael O2.jpg[/attachment:3qfspjgv][attachment=1:3qfspjgv]Michael O2.2.jpg[/attachment:3qfspjgv][attachment=2:3qfspjgv]o2mj_1.jpg[/attachment:3qfspjgv][attachment=3:3qfspjgv]o2mj_2.jpg[/attachment:3qfspjgv][attachment=4:3qfspjgv]o2mj_3.jpg[/attachment:3qfspjgv]
Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 11:49:42 PM by Avijackson
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


mykidsmum

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:25:50 PM
Quote from: "Avijackson"
I request excuses by my English because it is not my language. But you would mean to them to all who the type of O2 and TII is Michael Jackson. This demonstrated in other forums. In O2 we saw a MJ very badly combed and very thin. One does not see as MJ but is MJ. So that to send a double to the O2? In 12 years the people can change their way to interpret the things. We cannot remain with the way to dance of MJ of years ago. She can interpret of a way different his performance from the past because she is 50 years old and artistic she has matured his routine of dance and no longer he is a youngster, although we saw a MJ fortified in TII. The jackets so fit that I use in TII made me think about the Magician of Oz. I fodder that MJ queria that noticed the thin thing to him that this. MJ is a person who when changing its hairdo, its glasses, their clothes or its gestures we can confuse it with another person. They remember what can make the bad illumination in a face, a scene or a house (we can see ghosts). I am going to try to secure a photo of MJ in O2 where we can clearly see the scars him in the face. [Attachment = 0] o2mj_1.jpg [/ attachment] [attachment = 1] o2mj_2.jpg [/ attachment] [ attachment = 2] o2mj_3.jpg [/ attachment][attachment=0:3m0ydzp8]Michael O2.jpg[/attachment:3m0ydzp8][attachment=1:3m0ydzp8]Michael O2.2.jpg[/attachment:3m0ydzp8]
those were great pictures showing him moving into the light...I was looking for those...Good find!  I agree with your post too.  Not to mention in TII he was not dancing at full strength and the dancers said he was telling them to "conserve" themselves too.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:38:52 PM
We follow with the comparisons ..... : Roll:: roll:: roll:: roll:: roll: [attachment = 1] MichaelJacksonO2.jpg [/ attachment] [attachment = 1] MichaelJacksonO2.jpg [/ attachment]
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 26, 2010, 11:46:26 PM
And now a small assembly ..... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[attachment=1:pbavfcxj]O2assembly2.jpg[/attachment:pbavfcxj][attachment=0:pbavfcxj]O2assembly1.jpg[/attachment:pbavfcxj]
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


mykidsmum

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 27, 2010, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: "Avijackson"
And now a small assembly ..... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[attachment=1:3qcacspl]O2assembly2.jpg[/attachment:3qcacspl][attachment=0:3qcacspl]O2assembly1.jpg[/attachment:3qcacspl]
welcome to the club!  LOL...great picture!  I know how hard it is to find 2 pictures of him in the same pose...good job...MJ 100 percent!
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 27, 2010, 12:47:35 AM
Quote from: "mykidsmum"
Quote from: "mjj29081958"
Quote from: "Raven"
The question is not so much the point that Michael used doubles or stuntdoubles, for he did. Problem is that it is being tremendously exaggerated. Doubles DO look similar to the person they resemble, but not to the level that some people in here are suggesting.

Ditto.
His own his siblings looks nothing like him, but he did find a lot of random men that looks exactly like him? No way guys, even with surgeries you can't do that.
Breaking news...I found the O2 match guy!  It was a sibling...It was Jermaine!

LOL omg this one will give me nightmares, I'm sure of it.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

kemre

Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 27, 2010, 12:55:27 AM
Quote from: "mykidsmum"
Quote from: "Avijackson"
And now a small assembly ..... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[attachment=1:g5j9kjan]O2assembly2.jpg[/attachment:g5j9kjan][attachment=0:g5j9kjan]O2assembly1.jpg[/attachment:g5j9kjan]
welcome to the club!  LOL...great picture!  I know how hard it is to find 2 pictures of him in the same pose...good job...MJ 100 percent!
Seriously! It's hard. I've tried without luck. Actually if I even used the pictures that you used I still wouldn't be able to cut them and rearrange them the way you guys do! .

I don't think people realize the hard work that it takes.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"Tell them that it\'s human nature!"

the arabian nights

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 27, 2010, 02:34:21 AM
brilliant postings - chocolate easter eggs around
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

mykidsmum

  • Guest
Re: Proof it was Michael at the 02
March 27, 2010, 08:27:09 AM
Quote from: "the arabian nights"
brilliant postings - chocolate Easter eggs around
I hope they are Cadbury chocolate Easter eggs...those are my favorite!  I think I have gone thru 2 packages of them already!  YUM!!!  LOL
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
4600 Views
Last post January 01, 2010, 11:45:11 AM
by mykidsmum
12 Replies
1693 Views
Last post December 29, 2009, 11:36:22 AM
by Eva R
40 Replies
3759 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 10:11:52 AM
by comsense
177 Replies
11680 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 01:01:25 AM
by darkchild
46 Replies
3747 Views
Last post March 24, 2010, 01:44:24 PM
by MJJ1982

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal