I think there are all types of illusions. Long before the movie TII, during the movie and still going. It's designed to teach us all kinds of lessons. Like don't believe everything you see and hear. Don't judge a book by it's cover. Telling truth from fact and so on.............<br /><br /><br />Thanks Mike :th_bravo:
Mjonmymind i feel ya... i didnt think like that at first when i saw it but something was weird<br />i got an awkward feeling when i watched it at first and i didnt know why. It wasnt until i started watching and watching it with different intensions everytime to try and point out different things i may have not seen at first. Then joe jackson said that about the doubles and it msde me watch it again...... then BOOM it hit me when i watched the dancing and just weird mannerisms. I studied the cameras, angles, scenes, each stage character orange pants etc......,. Once i started watching it was ovious to me. Then i started thinking........ That would be what i wanted<br />To do as an artist..... make a movie about myself but direct it and teach the actors or impersonators how to be EXACTLY like me without actually having to act in it. Sees EVERY SHOT<br />Andhow it looks on camera.
As for the drama.... i never had a problen w anyone and def wont be disrespected<br />by anyone. I am an easygoing laid back dude. I just want to figure this damn hoax out<br />And make sure my boy, inpspiration, and brother MJ is ok. I accept your apology aussie i appreciate it. There is no reason for anyone to get upset at someones elses theory or<br />opinion because NO ONE knows the truth not souza, pearl jr, mo, front, back....... Only God<br />and the people MJ want to know are the only ones who have the truth.
And for the record.... The only stage character from the movie I think could possiblly be MJ<br />Is the MAIN one who they show 85% of the time on stage. And in my opinion its the double that MJ paid for his plastic surgeory who was already an impersonator who had been practicing being like MJ for years..... That seema to be a legit reason to pay that much for someone to look more like you. But thats just my opinion. None of us..... which SUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!
You're right there! No one I guess wants to be disrespected. All of us need therefore to be respectful <br /><br /><br />Hey Mack, so what are your thoughts on 02 mike?
And I'm referring to the stride and the fist pumping "this is it"<br /><br />I personally believe 02 MJ is legit. But manerisims and behavior out of character. Yet teeth examination indicate its mike.<br /><br />Doesn't this make it plausible that TII mike is possibly legit, even though some of his moves appear out of character?<br /><br />Interested on your thoughts on this point
YoungMack I meant his post # 13. I just want to know the source of such information, because if so, this reinforces even more deception. With that purpose MJ trasformaria a double spending 4 million? It is a considerable sum and only justifies a major reason "the deception of the plan.", Would be nice if you gave your source to locate in time and space of this hoax. And again my mind who came to UCLA :suspect:
Australian MJ Believer, Im glad someone else mentions about the teeth. I have been saying for ages that its MJ at the O2, because of his wider tooth on the bottom row of his teeth. As for the rehersals, I also believe it is Michael all of the time. Yes some of his moves are a bit strange and different, but maybe he did this on purpose, or maybe he was just feeling different on these occasions.
I must give credit to bec here. I actually thought it was an impersonator as something was off for me at 02. The walk and fist pumping mostly didn't sit well with me. When I first landed here mid last year that was one of the first things I was curious about. I researched some of the old threads / forums. Funny bec Went to prove that it wasn't MJ but a teeth comparison showed it was MJ and perhaps the behaviour was deliberate to throw us off and create controversy. So thank you bec although I'm sure many others have made the teeth connection too. In fact there are a few YT videos abt the connection.<br /><br />So with all this in mind, MJ being out of character at 02, it's completely plausible that it was MJ in TII too. (for me it's a fact perhaps others such as our friend Mack, something to ponder :icon_e_wink: )
Did anyone notice how blurry and smuged almost some of this footage was? How come??? It was shot in HD wasnt it? And we already know it is an all out full length feature film not<br />"Private videos" for MJs home collection. Why lie about that at the beginning? ???? The 02 guy like i said i havent lookes into it to much but i think that wohld be MJ because there was alot said subliminally and a big message so i would think he would want to be in charge to make sure it went right...... Unlesa that was just a part of the movie and shot like a film with extras etc in which case it would be a double.
So you think he wanted to be in charge of the press conference for TII but not in charge / in control of singing and dancing on TII <br /><br /><br />Sorry not trying to start something. But that argument doesn't make sense to me as its contradictory.
I am no expert on the doubles theory. All I can say is that orange pants for me was MJ. At first I thought not, but something about his apparent shyness at moments possibly due to the fact that he obviously knew this would be seen by millions of people, made me re-think my initial assumption. I love orange pants MJ. Well heck, orange, gold, black, white - I love them all.
i beleive that MJ himself often played the role of an impersonator to throw people off. this is an agreeable theory amongst many here at the forum. to me that explanation fits both 02 and TII scenarios. and is punctuated by mr joe jackson claims of "doubles"<br /><br />its part of the planned controversy which mr joe jackson was playing his role when he made the "doubles in TII statement" its too be taken with the same measure of salt when "la toya says MJ was murdered", or paris says, "i still miss daddy" or katherine says, "it never gets easier"<br /><br /><br />
So aussie........ let me ask you....... since we know that tii was a full scale production feature film... why did they lie and say it was for michaels private home videos? Also since it was filmed in hd why was so many of the shots look smudged and unclear MAINLY on the performances. Only filmed them from certain angles etc......... what is ure explanation for all that???
I mean the only stage mj they use closeups on is theMAIN on who they show about 85% of<br />The time. When they show the others its only from certain angles and tend to be blurry or smudgy. I am an actor as well as musical artist and ive been on many sets and seen filming amd directors in action. Its just not normal for shots to look that way especially when its shot in hd.
Comments