The Return

larry141094

So after 3 years, im back... in those 3 years, nothing at the site has changed. Im bringing this up simply because there is a big issue with how these "investigations" are being carried out.

What the investigations consist of:

- Quote mining
- Missinterpreted "clues"
- Overreaction
- Confirmation bias
- Lack of sensible debate

And probably the most important part
- Rejection of facts and common sense

What the site NEEDS:

- Objectivness in everything
- Rational discussion of pictures/quotes/evidence
- A willingness to accept new knowledge
- And SCIENTIFIC REASONING

So what do i mean by all this? And why am i bothering in the first place? Well i like to think of myself as a Philosophical Scientist, in terms of the way a view the world and the things in it, for example you cannot obtain truth without looking at the evidence and you cannot look at the evidence without logically working through it. In other words, Science, Truth, Knowledge, History and Philosophy are what matter the most and with MJ being my favourite solo artist, i of course want the truth.

Now i will be honest, i am not a believer, however that does not mean MJ did not fake his death. It just means that i haven't had the time to look at what little evidence we have... and even THAT should not be a conclusive answer...
I think i speak for most people here when i say, the truth is the most important thing here and it is our duty as fans and (hopefully) rational human beings to pierce the veil and find the truth. Of course there are those who are 100% sure they know, which is all good and well, but anyone who is rational should know that in obtaining truth has a side of uncertainty and any curious mind shouldnt assume they know they answers, they should assume they dont.

in that spirit, i am here, i assume i dont know everything and that we must look at the evidence and rationalise our beliefs according to what we know. At the present, i believe Michael Jackson is long dead, however, it is logical and completly reasonable to assume that i am wrong and so i wouldnt be honest with myself if i wasnt here debating the issue and helping discard what is slowing any sort of truth being discovered. Because it is a universal fact that if no new information is being brought in, over time things will become more random and unpredictable...

Australian MJ BeLIEver

on 1359543205:

<br />So after 3 years, im back... in those 3 years, nothing at the site has changed. Im bringing this up simply because there is a big issue with how these "investigations" are being carried out.<br /><br />- Quote mining<br />- Missinterpreted "clues"<br />- Overreaction<br />- Confirmation bias<br />- Lack of sensible debate<br />And probably the most important part<br />- Rejection of facts and common sense<br />

<br /><br />So by your post one can only assume that YOUR brand of philosophical science is based in the premis of generalising on a grand scale and pigeon holing members opinions into the categories / barriers you have graciously outlined?<br /><br />Yes, there is much idle chatter chatter here, but accompanied by much valuable research. Many answers come from doubts / exploration of theories / hypothesis etc<br /><br />I'm sure I don't need to tell you that your post comes off as incredibly patronizing!  :icon_rolleyes:<br /><br /><br />Lack of sensible debate... Rejection of common sense!?!? Pffftt what a joke!<br /><br />If everyone here is insensible and rejects common sense as you put it, why don't you enlighten us and give everyone the answers!!!!<br /><br /> :icon_twisted:

larry141094

You didnt read the whole thing... obviously. And no not by MY reasoning, by Academia's reasoning. I go by the rules that allow us to discover truth, the part of my post that you quoted was the issues which prevents truth from being found. <br />As i said, im here because logically i could easily be wrong, the standards of science and logic bind any rational search for the truth and that includes mine.<br /><br />

Australian MJ BeLIEver

Aside your self branded 'academic' reasoning, 'simple and basic' reasoning shows that MJ never died in 25.06.09<br /><br />The laughable irony is that millions of (self inflated not mentioning names lol) 'academics' of the world believe MJ is dead in spite of SIMPLE COMMON SENSE saying otherwise.<br /><br />I respect and agree to your notion of theories need conclusive proof to be substantiated. (Although you said it in other words) But where there is no evidence on the WHY and HOW, then only scenarios can be thrown around until more light / evidence is shed and there is absolutely NO SHAME in that. It's called brainstorming.<br /><br />Oh, and many 'academics' unabashedly engage in such.

Adi

So larry.....I'm curious.....what is your Null hypothesis?

larry141094

Im here to find that evidence myself.<br /><br />The issue i have with your statement is your position that the view of the majority (AKA common sense) is a rediculous view to have. This kind of thinking destroys anything close to rational discussion from the get go. <br /><br />The next thing is you said (i am assuming, correct me if im wrong) that there is no conclusive evidence to the why or how regarding the death of Michael Jackson... well the why is obviously unanswerable in terms of what i know. But the how has been established...<br /><br />The final thing i just want to clear up is your missinterpretation of the burden of proof, in a rational argument, if one makes a claim, they must back it up with evidence, the more extraordinary the claim, the larger the amount of evidence that is required. It is claimed by the Corners office in LA that Michael Jackson died of Acute Propofol intoxication, death in this case isnt really out of the ordinary. However, the claim IS backed up by credible evidence. This is where the counter claim must start and thus far i haven't seen a claim that refutes the evidence.<br /><br />In reply to Adi, firstly no hypothesis is null, that is an unfair assertion and secondly i have no hypothesis, i haven't really looked at enough counter claims to make a fair one. My position is simple, i believe that Michael Jackson is dead, according to what i know, my position remains open (as should everyones) to new evidence to the contrary.

Adi

on 1359546058:

<br />In reply to Adi, firstly no hypothesis is null, that is an unfair assertion and secondly i have no hypothesis, i haven't really looked at enough counter claims to make a fair one. My position is simple, [size=12pt]i believe that Michael Jackson is dead,[/size] according to what i know, my position remains open (as should everyones) to new evidence to the contrary.<br />

<br /><br />Since you raised the matter of us needing to use scientific reasoning, a Null hypothesis in science is the "default hypothesis" or the "default theory" and that default position depends on what you are trying to prove. <br /><br />So then, the bolded part quoted above IS your Null hypothesis I would say......after all it was you who stated in your original post that this site needs SCIENTIFIC REASONING, rational discussion and objectiveness .....so I thought you would probably understand the simple basics of a Null hypothesis to scientific reasoning, discovery and experimentation.<br /><br />Anyway......carry on larry.

Australian MJ BeLIEver

on 1359546058:

<br /><br />The issue i have with your statement is your position that the view of the majority (AKA common sense) is a rediculous view to have. This kind of thinking destroys anything close to rational discussion from the get go. <br />

<br /><br />I am going to plead ignorant to understanding what you mean. Because in my part of the world common sense almost always = rationality.<br /><br />

The next thing is you said (i am assuming, correct me if im wrong) that there is no conclusive evidence to the why or how regarding the death of Michael Jackson... well the why is obviously unanswerable in terms of what i know. But the how has been established...<br />

<br />No, there are numerous theories on how, DWD, Double, Dummy, Real MJ.<br /><br />

<br />The final thing i just want to clear up is your missinterpretation of the burden of proof, in a rational argument, if one makes a claim, they must back it up with evidence, the more extraordinary the claim, the larger the amount of evidence that is required.

<br /><br />Naturally. Extraordinary is subjective. What is extraordinary to one, may not be to the other. I:e. DWD completely plausible to one investagator, and to another completely absurd. What is extraordinary and what is ordinary? We are afterall talkign about Michael Jackson here.<br /><br />

It is claimed by the Corners office in LA that Michael Jackson died of Acute Propofol intoxication, death in this case isnt really out of the ordinary. However, the claim IS backed up by credible evidence.

If you considered fake, fraudlent, doctored AR's and various statements as CREDIBLE edivdence. Lol<br /><br />

This is where the counter claim must start and thus far i haven't seen a claim that refutes the evidence.

With all due respect are you looking at them thoroughly? Even if you are have you sighted the originals personally?  Those documents from Coroners office are as substantial as verbal claims that they are false? They are AS true as claims by hoaxers that they are false. All statements whether they be on paper from camp MJ or from hoaxers have the same weight, as both have no proof.<br /><br /><br />

My position is simple, i believe that Michael Jackson is dead, according to what i know, my position remains open (as should everyones) to new evidence to the contrary.<br />

<br /><br /><br />What do you know? I am keen to know? Are you literally speaking of the laughable coverage that he is dead? Riddiculous interviews with family and press releases accompaied by ludacris documents such as those that are fraudulent / fake from the coronors office? I guess my point is how are they any more reliable / substantial than claims from believers / hoaxers saying he is alive?<br /><br />DO you see what I am saying? They are both just claims (one on paper from coroner, or TV from family) the other verbal from hoaxers who push the boundaries of the garbage that is rolled out on TV.<br /><br />You are an MJ fan. Just remember that just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don't make it factual...<br /><br /><br />In addition to the information from the coroner re: propofol intoxification this is but the mere tip of the ice berg. What about clues of DH from the horses mouth himself, in TII, Lyrics, Interviews pre DOD, etc. Obvious green screen funeral. Ridiculous Memorial. etc etc etc. I could go on for eternity. How do you reconcile that? (Rhetorical, don't bother)<br /><br /><br />It is clear you see different to many here on the forum. I'm not going to go on and on flogging a dead horse because its obvious he is not dead, in fact there is NIL evidence to date he is dead and more that he is alive. I will however, wish you all the best in your endeavours to find your version of the truth. Good Luck  :smiley-vault-misc-150:

larry141094

Adi, an opinion does not require ANY evidence, thats why i stated "i believe, according to what i know". Evidence is required when you make a claim or an assertion.<br /><br />MJ BeLIEver, common sense is not rationality (unfortunatly, look it up) </br></br>That said my issue with the things you listed are simply that they are theories to explain away actual evidence. If you claim legal documents fake, there needs to be evidence of that claim. The way you view MJ's relatives on TV is a subjective matter and no one can really know anything based on pure speculation.<br /><br />When i say extraordinary i am using a level of interpretation, if i say "The car i own is black", that is a claim and not much evidence is required, mainly because there's no reason that any person would lie about the colour of their car, but also because black cars are a common thing. However if i say "I was abducted by aliens", a verbal story just wont cut it, because it is not a common event.<br /><br />You understand what i mean? Yes there are theories and many of them are logical... however i cant start theorising until the current theory is displaced. And it is on the burden of the ones making the claim to displace it

Souza

If you claim legal documents fake, there needs to be evidence of that claim.

Michael's middle name is JOE, not Joseph. By LAW, this legal middle name, which is stated on his passport and child molestation indictment, MUST be stated exactly on the death certificate. It's not there, it says Joseph. The bull shit some have tried to throw in about it's not a problem to make a middle name shorter or longer, is crap. Let's say my middle name is Miss, my DC will not state Mississippi. Plus they claim to have identified the body by his driver's licence, which states JOE (if it even exists because to my knowledge Michael doesn't even HAVE a DL...thank the Lord), so how fuck that up and write down Joseph? A coroner's office assuming? I don't think so. Plus we have La Toya claiming she signed the damn thing! Your scientific reasoning on this?

paula-c

It is claimed by the Corners office in LA that Michael Jackson died of Acute Propofol intoxication, death in this case isnt really out of the ordinary. However, the claim IS backed up by credible evidence.

>A question, your you've read the autopsy report?, and when it comes to the death of MJ is an excellent staging worthy of all those who swallow everything that look and listen for the media.

Congratulations to Michael Jackson for his latest show :th_bravo:

sweetsunsetwithMJ

Larry if you think Michael is dead what are you doing here?? I won't even bother to explain why I believe Michael is alive, for what?? I don't wanna lose my time, after all you won't never believe he is alive unless he returns.

everywhereasign

on 1359555371:

If you claim legal documents fake, there needs to be evidence of that claim.

Michael's middle name is JOE, not Joseph. By LAW, this legal middle name, which is stated on his passport and child molestation indictment, MUST be stated exactly on the death certificate. It's not there, it says Joseph. The bull shit some have tried to throw in about it's not a problem to make a middle name shorter or longer, is crap. Let's say my middle name is Miss, my DC will not state Mississippi. Plus they claim to have identified the body by his driver's licence, which states JOE (if it even exists because to my knowledge Michael doesn't even HAVE a DL...thank the Lord), so how fuck that up and write down Joseph? A coroner's office assuming? I don't think so. Plus we have La Toya claiming she signed the damn thing! Your scientific reasoning on this?

Amazing driving ability , only bumps idiots who park in his way and occasionally crashes over curbs or into trees.

everlastinglove_MJ

You know Larry, when I think of scientific reasoning I'm thinking of the four rules of scientific reasoning of Sir Isaac Newton, which is indeed a scientific approach. I think a scientific approach is challengeable because it is almost impossible to find or collect evidence based on scientific reasoning as long as we all find data from sources like the news and internet, which are not proven facts and cannot be considered and judged as 'real' evidence. Our investigation is based on theories, built up research and belief which might be close to the truth. There will be a moment that theories become facts. <br />"Science can never prove that a theory is "true". But it can show that a theory is false." I'm curious about YOUR scientific reasoning on our hypotheses since you are a Philosophical Scientist :icon_e_geek:<br /><br /><br />@EverywhereASign: yes splendid driving ability.. who needs a DL :errrr:? :icon_lol:<br /><br />

hesouttamylife

Why would Michael have to be identified by his driver’s license if his family and all his staff was at the hospital and he was picked up at his residence?  He wasn’t dead by fire or dead so long that the body had decomposed beyond recognition, etc.  So why would they have to identify him by a driver’s license?  That makes absolutely no sense to me.  If I am correct a family member or in the case of decomposition and other extremes, dental records are used.  At the very least it would seem more reasonable to check fingerprints.  The other oddity in Michael’s “alleged” case is that he wasn’t wearing street clothes nor did he have on a coat with pockets, so where did they find the license?  Was he clutching it in his hand?  The whole scenario reeks of hoax to me. 

larry141094

Well im more of a Karl Popper myself, although the best way to find the truth IS to disprove as you could find evidence for just about anything. On Souza's comment, his name has always been Michael Joeseph Jackson, my evidence for this is his sons birth certificate http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9500000/Prince-s-birth-certificate-prince-michael-jackson-9523264-574-623.jpg<br /><br />And it is common for coroners to use multiple sources to identify a deceased person, so a drivers license isn't really that strange at all<br /><br />So unless you have evidence to the contrary, the death certificate IS legally viable

suspicious mind

[img]http://[/img]

MJonmind

on 1359602865:

<br />Why would Michael have to be identified by his driver’s license if his family and all his staff was at the hospital and he was picked up at his residence?  He wasn’t dead by fire or dead so long that the body had decomposed beyond recognition, etc.  So why would they have to identify him by a driver’s license?  That makes absolutely no sense to me.  If I am correct a family member or in the case of decomposition and other extremes, dental records are used.  At the very least it would seem more reasonable to check fingerprints.  The other oddity in Michael’s “alleged” case is that he wasn’t wearing street clothes nor did he have on a coat with pockets, so where did they find the license?  Was he clutching it in his hand?  The whole scenario reeks of hoax to me. <br />

<br /><br />

Ladies and Gentlemen, skinny and stout,<br />I'll tell you a tale I know nothing about;<br />The Admission is free, so pay at the door,<br />Now pull up a chair and sit on the floor.<br /><br />One fine day in the middle of the night,<br />Two dead boys got up to fight;<br />Back to back they faced each other,<br />Drew their swords and shot each other.<br /><br />A blind man came to watch fair play,<br />A mute man came to shout "Horray!"<br />A deaf policeman heard the noise and<br />Came to stop those two dead boys.<br /><br />He lived on the corner in the middle of the block,<br />In a two-story house on a vacant lot;<br />A man with no legs came walking by,<br />and kicked the lawman in his thigh.<br /><br />He crashed through a wall without making a sound,<br />into a dry creek bed and suddenly drowned;<br />The long black hearse came to cart him away,<br />But he ran for his life and is still gone today.<br /><br />I watched from the corner of the big round table,<br />The only eyewitness to facts of my fable;<br />But if you doubt my lies are true,<br />Just ask the blind man, he saw it too.<br />(Homedog)  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090327162855AArZFGu

<br /><br />Larry, I don't think you're going to find the kind of evidence you're looking for--it defeats the purpose of hoaxing one's death.  It's supposed to be convincing, yet inviting suspicion by a trail of subtle clues or "whispers" as Front calls them.  This is not pure Science, this is pure mind-warp by a genius.  Have fun!

Souza

on 1359603393:

<br />Well im more of a Karl Popper myself, although the best way to find the truth IS to disprove as you could find evidence for just about anything. On Souza's comment, his name has always been Michael Joeseph Jackson, my evidence for this is his sons birth certificate http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9500000/Prince-s-birth-certificate-prince-michael-jackson-9523264-574-623.jpg<br /><br />And it is common for coroners to use multiple sources to identify a deceased person, so a drivers license isn't really that strange at all<br /><br />So unless you have evidence to the contrary, the death certificate IS legally viable<br />

<br /><br />Your scientific reasoning sucks. Your only evidence are birth certificates pulled by TMZ while all birth certificates of the Jacksons were already sealed? And they can't even get Debbie's middle name right on both. You choose to ignore legal documents and signatures of Michael himself to try and prove me wrong. Sorry, but my evidence is much more reliable than yours, you will have to do better than that.

larry141094

Souza, if im not mistaken that would mean no pictures of legal documents found online would be of any validity in that case. That said, to the people saying i wont find evidence... i disagree, ANYTHING leaves some kind of trail and a conspiracy such as this would require a lot of perfection to get right... odds are, people would have made mistakes.<br /><br />Now im not saying we should have a forensic investigation (because not only has that been done, but it would also be unrealistic) but the evidence of a conspiracy SHOULD be there... and it is... the dissapearence of security footage is one of the most damning pieces of evidence to suggest pre meditation OR at least a cover up. That's the evidence im looking into at the moment, because that is something real and isnt some false interpretation of something that isnt really there.

Shrimp

About the Joe-Joseph thing, I never participated in a previous discussion about this on this board (I'm only a member for a couple of months), but I had always thought his middle name was Joseph. A few months ago, I wasn't even aware that Joe was also used. Katherine wrote in her book (in the 80ies?) that she named him Michael Joseph. So actually I do think that his real legal name (at least at birth) is Joseph. He might have changed it later though.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think there's something strange going on with this name thing. Jermaine stated in his book that Michael's middle name has always been Joe, so he counterdicts his mother there. And if Michael Joe was on Michael's driver's license, why would the coroner's office change this to Joseph?<br /><br />Larry, you want scientific evidence of the hoax? How about the extra star on the Californian seal at the trial? With no legal seal, no legal trial. And why would the trial not be legal if Michael was really dead? To me that is much much more than a 'whisper' or a 'clue'.

larry141094

on 1359632238:

<br />About the Joe-Joseph thing, I never participated in a previous discussion about this on this board (I'm only a member for a couple of months), but I had always thought his middle name was Joseph. A few months ago, I wasn't even aware that Joe was also used. Katherine wrote in her book (in the 80ies?) that she named him Michael Joseph. So actually I do think that his real legal name (at least at birth) is Joseph. He might have changed it later though.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think there's something strange going on with this name thing. Jermaine stated in his book that Michael's middle name has always been Joe, so he counterdicts his mother there. And if Michael Joe was on Michael's driver's license, why would the coroner's office change this to Joseph?<br /><br />Larry, you want scientific evidence of the hoax? How about the extra star on the Californian seal at the trial? With no legal seal, no legal trial. And why would the trial not be legal if Michael was really dead? To me that is much much more than a 'whisper' or a 'clue'.<br />

<br /><br />Show me, dont just state it, provide evidence. <br />

leilani81

on 1359636413:

<br />

on 1359632238:

<br />About the Joe-Joseph thing, I never participated in a previous discussion about this on this board (I'm only a member for a couple of months), but I had always thought his middle name was Joseph. A few months ago, I wasn't even aware that Joe was also used. Katherine wrote in her book (in the 80ies?) that she named him Michael Joseph. So actually I do think that his real legal name (at least at birth) is Joseph. He might have changed it later though.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think there's something strange going on with this name thing. Jermaine stated in his book that Michael's middle name has always been Joe, so he counterdicts his mother there. And if Michael Joe was on Michael's driver's license, why would the coroner's office change this to Joseph?<br /><br />Larry, you want scientific evidence of the hoax? How about the extra star on the Californian seal at the trial? With no legal seal, no legal trial. And why would the trial not be legal if Michael was really dead? To me that is much much more than a 'whisper' or a 'clue'.<br />

<br /><br />Show me, dont just state it, provide evidence.<br />

<br /><br /> /><br />If you go to the End the camera goes to the seal above the judge, If you pause it and count the stars you will find the extra star.<br /><br />Also /><br />Behind the scenes footage, the cameraman shows the same seal above on the wall behind where the judge would sit.

Ijustcantstoplovingu

on 1359636413:

<br />

on 1359632238:

<br />About the Joe-Joseph thing, I never participated in a previous discussion about this on this board (I'm only a member for a couple of months), but I had always thought his middle name was Joseph. A few months ago, I wasn't even aware that Joe was also used. Katherine wrote in her book (in the 80ies?) that she named him Michael Joseph. So actually I do think that his real legal name (at least at birth) is Joseph. He might have changed it later though.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think there's something strange going on with this name thing. Jermaine stated in his book that Michael's middle name has always been Joe, so he counterdicts his mother there. And if Michael Joe was on Michael's driver's license, why would the coroner's office change this to Joseph?<br /><br />Larry, you want scientific evidence of the hoax? How about the extra star on the Californian seal at the trial? With no legal seal, no legal trial. And why would the trial not be legal if Michael was really dead? To me that is much much more than a 'whisper' or a 'clue'.<br />

<br /><br />Show me, dont just state it, provide evidence.<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />if you look at the vedios of the trial footage you can count for yourself, I watched the trial this is correct. <br /><br />Blessings.

paula-c

This is not scientific evidence, it is a real thing; number 1 who took this video, if we set ourselves was taken from the top and inside the house number 2 i think that these bodyguards are very happyyyyyy with the death of his boss, " what man so evil "<br /><br /><br /><br />http://s867.beta.photobucket.com/user/Christabelle777/media/IsFearTheAppropriateResponse.mp4.html

Souza

Larry ain't gonna see it anyway. Trying is waisting your time. It's not a newbie, he was here 3 years ago and still thinks Michael is dead. Either he is whining just because he has too much time on his hands, or he is too lazy to start investigating and reading himself. In both cases, we should not spoon feed him any further.