Could this be a double?

hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
edited January 1970 in Hoax Theories
MJ+TII+74.jpg

The cleft looks abit longer but idk if it's lighting effect or from the angle itself.

Comments

  • MissGMissG Posts: 7,403
    Looks like Michael to me <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    For heaven's sake....This is Michael!!! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> Unambiguously MJ
  • AgentBJAgentBJ Posts: 587
    MJ+TII+74.jpg

    The cleft looks abit longer but idk if it's lighting effect or from the angle itself.

    Oh gosh! HELP!!!
    I am sure this is Michael. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
  • HeartbreakerHeartbreaker Posts: 8,644

    The cleft looks abit longer but idk if it's lighting effect or from the angle itself.

    Oh gosh! HELP!!!
    I am sure this is Michael. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->


    This is definitely Michael!!!
    If not Michael, then in the film are only doubles.
    Everything is good AgentBJ <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    What about him?

    MJ+TII+104.JPG
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    What about him?

    MJ+TII+104.JPG

    This is also Michael!!!
    Which is why do you think it is not he <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    What about him?

    MJ+TII+104.JPG

    This is also Michael!!!
    Which is why do you think it is not he <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
    Ask Souza, she's also thought about the Cleft.

    MJ+TII+10.jpg

    Real MJ has a shorter cleft. This cleft appears to be longer.
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    I know the opinion some ..., however, I think is MJ <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> What do you say to my Avater picture???? If the same picture is, actually, however, in color....
    Hmmm.....
    Only my opinion in addition <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    I know the opinion some ..., however, I think is MJ <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> What do you say to my Avater picture???? If the same picture is, actually, however, in color....
    Hmmm.....
    Only my opinion in addition <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
    Souza's already said that it isn't MJ and compared it to a photo taken on March last year. Here's one: 85285736.jpg
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    I know the opinion some ..., however, I think is MJ <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> What do you say to my Avater picture???? If the same picture is, actually, however, in color....
    Hmmm.....
    Only my opinion in addition <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
    Souza's already said that it isn't MJ and compared it to a photo taken on March last year. Here's one: 85285736.jpg

    I know Michael in the pictures over and over again differently looks! I think it it comes very much on the admission and his condition!!! I think, nevertheless, this is MJ! I find only one picture very strange .... I try to find it!!!It is very difficult, Michael is terrifically changeable!!!

    (sorry 4 my bad englisch)
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    This picture seems strange! The profile seems to be so level!!! There is a Thread about that, now cannot find him, unfortunately! Unfortunately, this admission is too far away!!!
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    Listen, when Souza or Mo find this thread and comment about why it's not him, then you'll understand.
  • angelshadowangelshadow Posts: 8,257
    Listen, when Souza or Mo find this thread and comment about why it's not him, then you'll understand.
    I know the Thread about that.I wrote only my opinion to these pictures....
  • AgentBJAgentBJ Posts: 587
    What about him?

    MJ+TII+104.JPG

    This is also Michael!!!
    Which is why do you think it is not he <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->

    This is also Michael. I agree. Look at the eyes - Michaels. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
  • Listen, when Souza or Mo find this thread and comment about why it's not him, then you'll understand.

    I know I don't post much, but they have opinions just like everybody else on this forum. I don’t know if I’m reading your posts wrong, but it seem like you coming off like Souza’s and Mo’s opinions is right on this situation. I think they’ll want you to research for yourself and come up with your own opinion, and not take theirs as the truth but just as their opinion. You showed where Souza compared a picture to another of Michael; I do see the differences in them. However, I think its Michael not saying it’s the truth this just my opinion. Can't explain the differences in the pictures, but to me it's Michael.
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    Listen, when Souza or Mo find this thread and comment about why it's not him, then you'll understand.

    I know I don't post much, but they have opinions just like everybody else on this forum. I don’t know if I’m reading your posts wrong, but it seem like you coming off like Souza’s and Mo’s opinions is right on this situation. I think they’ll want you to research for yourself and come up with your own opinion, and not take theirs as the truth but just as their opinion. You showed where Souza compared a picture to another of Michael; I do see the differences in them. However, I think its Michael not saying it’s the truth this just my opinion. Can't explain the differences in the pictures, but to me it's Michael.
    And you think it's Michael in these 2 pics?

    michael-jackson-this-is-it-trailer-webcastr.jpg

    Michael-Jackson-rehearsin-001.jpg
  • SouzaSouza Posts: 9,400
    hachiman, can you refrain from dragging me into a discussion I'm not aware of in the future? I have given my opinion on the doubles many times, everyone knows that and I'm kinda done with the doubles. If people still don't see there were doubles, they will never see. I have not given my opinion on some of the pictures you posted though and if I will, I'd like to do that myself.

    "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."

  • Those two? No, I don't think that's Michael. I'm aware he used doubles, I was talking about the first two pictures you posted. I do believe he used doubles in This Is It. I wasn't trying to come off as a douche with you, sorry if I came off that way.
  • BambiMJBambiMJ Posts: 67
    or is truth??
  • msteetee34msteetee34 Posts: 1,234
    or is truth??

    To me Michael looks younger and like he has a little more weight on him on the right. I kinda feel like some parts of This is it was filmed alot earlier. I don't think the whole movie was filmed around the same time. That's my opinion. I just have a feeling. I think they was working on that project for awhile and not just for MJ's private home movie collection which they try to say is the reason they filmed the rehearsals. Please....
  • hachimanhachiman Posts: 188
    Why did I even join this site? -.- I've said before that IT TAKES TIME TO GET USED TO IT AND I JOINED THIS MONTH!
  • MissGMissG Posts: 7,403
    or is truth??

    I think that both are MJ but one pic is shopped.
Sign In or Register to comment.