he looks the same to me <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| --> i don't think we will ever agree on this doubles thing due to our varying opinions and the way we perceive things
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.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
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.
Well there are for sure doubles in TII, but we are comparing wrong picture!!
the 3rd MJ is MJ. It is not the double. doubles are the ''mj's'' with glasses on. To cover their eyes! U cant lie to the EYES!
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.
Well there are for sure doubles in TII, but we are comparing wrong picture!!
the 3rd MJ is MJ. It is not the double. doubles are the ''mj's'' with glasses on. To cover their eyes! U cant lie to the EYES!
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
I 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.
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 btw
you 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
I 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.
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 btw
you 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...
Change in height is due to the different heels of the shoes he wore! OHHH For GOd's sake!
And the eyes look different because he had all the FAT removed from beneath his eyes...Usually these small deposits of are responsible for eye bags in oldage...he didnt have them......
Its quite logical.
Apart from that I dont see any remarkable difference....excuse my ignorance.
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...
I am not bashing the doubles, I am only saying they don't look like Mike. The cleft of '? 2009' is too long, so is the chin. If there wasn't another 2009 picture of him you could have said he altered the chin again, yet we have a pic of him in 2009 with the cleft he has had for years. And that was taken 1 day after we saw O2 dude with the long cleft, so after O2 he changed his cleft back to the old one (in one day) and after that he changed it again to the long cleft for TII? I find that very hard to believe. Too many differences in the face between the March 6 picture and the TII pictures.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
So in that case the question would be: WHY doubles in TII? Was that his choice, or is AEG playing a sick game here?
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
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
I 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.
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 btw
you 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...
This is not the important thing, wether there are doubles or not.
Maybe there is doubles, but none of the pictures here are doubles. A stunt man was most likely used when it came to jumping through a window, but that's not a double. That's just an actor, we never saw his face..
So in that case the question would be: WHY doubles in TII? Was that his choice, or is AEG playing a sick game here?
I know eh! the only reason I wasnt going mad because of the idea of him using doubles like some memebers here are is because I was thinking MJ is behind it all, its ok it has a purpose! but now I dont know... it could be AEG!!! but wouldnt they have used only one double?
But then I am lost as to who these 3 guys are, can someone tell me who they are?
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Comments
he looks the same to me <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| --> i don't think we will ever agree on this doubles thing due to our varying opinions and the way we perceive things
Not a chance.
Here's something to break up the tension for those who need it.
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=59&t=6458<!-- l -->
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.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."IMHO this is just Michael, but the photo is photoshopped to make him look more gorgious than he already is ... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
well even earlier the this is it song was done what 18 years ago- funny how you can make millions on old material <!-- s
the 3rd MJ is MJ. It is not the double. doubles are the ''mj's'' with glasses on. To cover their eyes! U cant lie to the EYES!
have you got any stills
I 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.
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...
Haven't heard of that - when was this?
there must not be anything better to investigate today
leave poor mike or the doubles alone - their all beautiful
we are just like the sun and the new of the world
And the eyes look different because he had all the FAT removed from beneath his eyes...Usually these small deposits of are responsible for eye bags in oldage...he didnt have them......
Its quite logical.
Apart from that I dont see any remarkable difference....excuse my ignorance.
I am not bashing the doubles, I am only saying they don't look like Mike. The cleft of '? 2009' is too long, so is the chin. If there wasn't another 2009 picture of him you could have said he altered the chin again, yet we have a pic of him in 2009 with the cleft he has had for years. And that was taken 1 day after we saw O2 dude with the long cleft, so after O2 he changed his cleft back to the old one (in one day) and after that he changed it again to the long cleft for TII? I find that very hard to believe. Too many differences in the face between the March 6 picture and the TII pictures.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.""For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Photoshopped to make him look better than he already looked.
Pay extra attention to upper lip, his left side: slightly larger than other side.
MATCH.
Yep, and "cleft" is slightly disappearing.
This is not the important thing, wether there are doubles or not.
Maybe there is doubles, but none of the pictures here are doubles. A stunt man was most likely used when it came to jumping through a window, but that's not a double. That's just an actor, we never saw his face..
The truth will prevail..
But then I am lost as to who these 3 guys are, can someone tell me who they are?
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."But what does it mean, that he has this doubles? That he already disappeared before June 25th?
left and middle are the real Michael in my opinion! on the pictures under o2 mike