"BACK" is not a HOAX believer?
truthprevails
Posts: 878
So "BACK" is this person who joined the MJJC forum in April 2005 and made some very interesting posts, many of them strongly defending Katherine Jackson, which overall make many of us believe that he's either MJ or else a real insider. Well, looking at some of his posts recently I realized that he doesn't seem to believe in the hoax... How can we explain this? If MJ is alive, shouldn't "BACK" know this?
I don't know how to attach BACK's posts in a way that you can view them, so I'll just use the links from Bec's blog (haha, using Bec's blog again):
On 25-10-2009 BACK wrote:
"Conrad Mur[derer] (the taker of life)"
<!-- m -->http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... rning2.jpg<!-- m -->
On 22-06-2010 BACK wrote, referring to Katherine:
"After losing a Son nearly a year ago, you're reminded of just how fragile any element of life can be."
<!-- m -->http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... 060210.jpg<!-- m -->
BACK is very no-nonsense in general, and I don't get the sense he was kidding when calling Murray a murderer... I'm puzzled. <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
I don't know how to attach BACK's posts in a way that you can view them, so I'll just use the links from Bec's blog (haha, using Bec's blog again):
On 25-10-2009 BACK wrote:
"Conrad Mur[derer] (the taker of life)"
<!-- m -->http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... rning2.jpg<!-- m -->
On 22-06-2010 BACK wrote, referring to Katherine:
"After losing a Son nearly a year ago, you're reminded of just how fragile any element of life can be."
<!-- m -->http://exploringthehoax.files.wordpress ... 060210.jpg<!-- m -->
BACK is very no-nonsense in general, and I don't get the sense he was kidding when calling Murray a murderer... I'm puzzled. <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Comments
Yes, but BACK has the choice of not posting at all, or not talking about Murray at all. To write implying that Michael was murdered is a strong statement - which also seems reckless and insensitive to me, if Michael is really alive.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really see where it absolutely isn't Michael. I'll have to look at it some more but this BACK person is really protective of Katherine and talks as one who knows the family first hand.
There's no absolute proof that BACK is Michael either. It could be Janet or Randy, it could be Diana Ross or Evan Ross, it could be anyone familiar with the music biz and somewhat familiar with Michael...
Whenever we believe that someone is an insider (MJ or not), we want proof that they are, NOT that they aren't. (If I say to you that I'm an insider, you'll ask for proof right?) And if BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"?
BeLIEving BACK is MJ is not for everyone. It's been debated and posted many times, but you will either beLIEve it's MJ or not. I am convinced it's MJ.
I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.
No one has yet offered a possible answer to my question:
If BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"? I don't believe in blind faith, or in disregarding everything that doesn't fit the hoax idea or our ideas of who TS or BACK or other people & things are... I try to stay objective (as much as I can) and notice when something supports the hoax AND when something doesn't.
I understand that Michael/BACK wouldn't necessarily say "Mike's alive" or "I believe in the hoax", but why make a post calling Murray a murderer? As I said, BACK didn't need to post at all, or to talk about Murray at all.
Thanks for responding, Jaci. If you could see those posts as funny/humorous, that's OK... I really didn't. BACK is pretty dead serious in his posts, generally speaking... A death hoax is about joking that YOU (Mike in this case) are dead, which isn't insensitive - especially if your family and close friends are in the know. Referring to SOMEONE ELSE as a murderer is a different story - and Michael was always careful about the statements he made about others. VERY careful, if you look at his interviews, speeches, and even leaked phone calls to random friends. He refused to trash Eminem when given the chance, for instance.
Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> lol jk <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
My point is, if BACK is Mike, I think he would make his own rules just like with everything else.
Again, I have only read a few of BACK's posts. So I do not really know if he is Michael. Just sort of playing devil's advocate and sharing my first impressions, but definitely ready to learn more about this.
I can definitely see where you are coming from with that. I suppose I'm just looking at it from a different angle. I figure it's possible for Murrary to be in the know and perhaps even on Michael's side. Afterall, do we even know if that is his real identity? He could be laughing about that comment right now as we speak. He is a "murderer" in public opinion. Maybe that is his role in this alternate reality film and therefore was said in good humor.
Totally possible that my imagination has just run off again though <!-- s
"Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either..."
Jaci, do you really think Michael did this as a game/play? And he "didn't need to"?
Sorry, but I believe this is SERIOUS STUFF. Michael did not hoax his death (assuming he did), and put his 3 children through this, for no good reason...
1. MJ may actually have been forced into this - by circumstances we aren't aware of.
2. Even if MJ wasn't forced, he had a damn good reason for this.
EDIT: OK, I see you said "jk" and I do hope you were joking.
Please accept my apology if I've upset you. I can see that you feel quite passionate about this. I did not make the statement to say that I believe Michael is BACK. He could be, he couldn't be. I am definitely leaning towards an insider but I didn't mean to imply that I believe it was definitely Michael. I was just saying that those statements didn't give me a clear indication that it wasn't.
I agree with Jaci - I think the comment about Mur (derer) was meant with humor. I even chuckled when I saw how it was worded.
Please accept my apology for upsetting you. You could very well be right. At this point we only have suspicions one way or the other.
Blessings.
Oh I agree 100% that it's serious stuff, for sure. He did have damn good reason. But, I also believe it's possible to have fun while dealing with serious stuff, he proved that his entire life. Reminds me of a quote from V for Vendetta:
"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having" <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Plus, you have to admit, many aspects of all this have been QUITE entertaining, right?
And yes, if he was forced into it for reasons we aren't aware of then that would be a different story.
Oh and by the way, I was being sarcastic when I said MJ didn't need to hoax his death. I know he DEFINITELY needed to do this, it was very necessary. Sorry, I always try to stray from sarcasm over the internet because tone is so hard to detect. <!-- s
May I kindly say that it's not beneficial to attack others if they don't believe the same as you do. May I also say that I love your passion for Michael and for finding the truth. The truth will be revealed in the end regardless of the vehicle we use to get there. Please know that we do care. Blessings.
voiceforthesilent: It's cool, you didn't upset me! I just think there's a bit of a tendency on this forum to make the things that don't fit the hoax fit, one way or another, and I wish that we could just set them aside as "things that raise little alarm bells" without forcing them to fit. Of course there's a lot that none of us really know, and we can only hypothesize...
This is just something that raised an alarm bell for me, and it made me wonder whether there could be a motivation/reason for BACK making those statements which eludes me (because it really does).
LOL - funny, because I added the "jk" to my posts about TWO seconds after I posted it, because I realized I had used sarcasm and it has gotten me in trouble in the past...so I wanted to edit it before anyone could see it. Dang, I wasn't quick enough! <!-- s
And don't worry, I don't feel I was being attacked. I am used to conversations getting a bit passionate here and I think at this point most of us just take it with a grain of salt. At least I do. We all come from different walks of life that allow us to see things differently. It's a blessing not a curse! I just try to take it all in as well as give what I have to contribute to the conversation.
Love!
You are trying to find logical answers to an illogical situation (the hoax).
Think about it, nothing about this situation is logical no matter what you believe (beLIEve). MJ faking his death is not logical. MJ being afraid for his life, yet taking a drug which could kill him in his sleep from a doctor who he hardly knew, is not logical. MJ posting on a public forum under a pseudo name is not logical. MJ doing 50 concerts at the age of 50 is not logical. BACK posting the exact date of MJ's death is not logical. Mother Kate going on Oprah when she knows how her son felt about Oprah, not logical. Yet all of these things have occured.
MJ thinks outside of the box, he's proved this many times as he continues to make history. BACK never asked for followers or said he was an insider. He never made You tube videos and he never send out tweets. He never asked anyone to believe he is MJ and he has never tried to prove anything. You can either believe he's MJ or not. I choose to beLIEve.
MJ appears to be doing something on the MJJC site. Perhaps punking them has been planned for a long time. He said "this forum [MJJC] serves it's purpose well" shortly after arriving on the scene (2006).
Maybe they are supposed to be involved for a reason. There's seems to be some manipulation going on there, with Admin and deletion of hoax related comments. They are being led along. The information they are allowed to discuss there is being controlled for some reason. Remember, MJJC is owned by someone close to the estate.
Between back's posts, the connections MJJC has, the Breaking News controversey and subsequent estate/sony statements and the family twitter war all enraging the fan community, causing them to fight bitterly within the ranks... something is going on here.
(Ps. some may not realize, many MJJC members assumed back was MJ and discussed it openly on the boards, so in order for back to continue posting post 6/25/09, he HAD to address the Murray/Murder/MJ is Dead thing and comment accordingly as a "non-believer" else it would have looked suspicious and people might wonder. This caused anyone who had suspicions before to change their mind and accept that back had never been MJ after all. Obviously, MJJC intends to remain hoax-talk free and hoax-thought free as well. Again, indicating an agenda.)
I say this because in a way I believe BACK could be Michael, even if his way of talking is completely different, there are some things he said, the 7 days theory, the post on 5th of november about coincidences, that are strange.Who could have said that if not him?
Said:
and lots more.
I have all the screenshots of back's warnings starting 10/24/09, lots on 11/5/09, through the last one 6/22/10, (11) total, on this page: <!-- m -->http://exploringthehoax.wordpress.com/2 ... old-water/<!-- m -->
I always understood "now, watch me". I am still not sure about it, I don't know