Just want to say thanks for this very fascinating series. When I first became aware of the hoax and had a couple of profound experiences myself, my son had an interesting dream. He claims not to be a beLIEver (he's 18!) but had a dream in which MJ was in a spaceship of some sort that hovered above Rome for 3 days. Any weapon that tried to attack it fell to the ground. After 3 days, Michael appeared and came down and destroyed the exterior portion of the Vatican (including the Illuminati symbols like the obelisk) and walked in to St. Peter's basilica and took over. Thus your focus on the Vatican has truly piqued my interest.
Have you considered this possibility. If the Vatican is really the antichrist, as Martin Luther apparently suggested, would they not see MJ as a threat to their power? Did he know too much and/or was he so spiritually advanced he could take followers away from them, not just because of his fame? If history tells us anything, Messengers of God tend to stir things up and upset existing bureaucratic calcifying religious institutions and their leaders. After all, he does say Martin Luther and not Martin Luther KING. He's not sloppy. This was not a mistake.
Son: LOL! ‘Sacrilegious symbols?’ The whole Roman Catholic Church is just a pile of ‘sacrilege’ along with all of her spawn harlot ‘Christian’ churches who’s pastors have descended so low as to kiss the pope’s sullied hand. But I suppose many are blind to this. I believe I have the right to say this because I was blind to this myself. <br /><br />Yes Michael maintained many of his ‘Christian’ beliefs but one must understand the difference between ‘true’ Christianity and ‘professed’ Christianity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses stress on this concept and it is probably one of the most important notions that Michael has kept with him. <br /><br />(I hate to use the term ‘Christian’ as it has been cheapened by excessive and improper use.) <br /><br />Catholicism is NOT true Christianity. It is pagan Baal worship with a ‘Christian’ twist. This is not a matter of opinion. This is fact. All of its religious practices are derived from ancient pagan rituals. One would have to be blind not to see this.<br /><br />The ‘broader Christian faith’ deserves to be criticized. They ostracize the gay community and anyone who disagrees with them and their man-inspired doctrine and are shocked when said groups reject their “eternal message of Salvation”. <br /><br />I know this to be so because I have seen this with my own two eyes.<br /><br />Perhaps if they would actually read their Bible (if they indeed have one) they would know that Jesus teaches us how to approach an unbeliever >>>>With LOVE. NOT hate. We are to LOVE our enemies and do good to those who curse us and eventually, they will come around.<br /><br />But instead, many so-called Christians do the exact opposite.<br /><br />His 30th anniversary was an event that took place prior to his ‘death’ and is not relevant to the ‘death hoax’ so of course he would have picked artists of the time. But the TII Concert tour was never meant to happen in the first place. It’s the main part of the hoax. So why would he bring attention to Lady Gaga in particular when there were a plethora of other artists? There were plenty of other ‘new’ (and safer) artists that he could have chosen. Michael has NEVER shied away from controversy. As it stands, Lady Gaga is the epitome of controversy. Do you honestly think that Michael would play it safe for his most innovative work yet?<br /><br />This is Michael’s hoax, not ours. And it will adhere to HIS personal tastes and preferences, NOT ours. It has NOTHING to do with what we deem as acceptable or what we prefer. I learned this early on. <br /><br />Just because I don’t like certain things in the hoax investigation, (which I didn’t at one time ie: Elvis and other related stuff) does not invalidate them as credible possibilities. I would have thought that people would get this by now.<br /><br />And I say this with all due respect.<br /><br />Gwynned: Oh WOW! I actually remember reading about the dream that your son had quite some time ago. I have thought about that dream ever since. It’s amazing that you posted on this thread because I have been trying to find you lol. The Vatican is full of Illuminati symbols and I think it’s so strange how most of the believers fail to point that out here. I suppose that it must be a touchy subject. After all, speaking against the Catholic Church has its consequences but I don’t care because I know that God goes before me. <br /><br />I have definitely considered the possibility. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Vatican is indeed the seat of the antichrist. An individual like Michael is most certainly a threat to the Vatican because he has such an immense influence all around the world. He knows too much and has been trying to tell people what he knows through his music in the form of unorthodox subliminal messages.<br /><br />I really think that Michael is a messenger of God. He fits the description quite well. Lol<br /><br />I totally agree. He is definitely not sloppy. This is no mistake nor is this an accident. <br /><br />Thanks for your comment! <br /> <br />I have posted two other episodes so here they are:<br /><br />Episode 11:<br /><br />Episode 12<br />
This is Michael’s hoax, not ours. And it will adhere to HIS personal tastes and preferences, NOT ours. It has
NOTHING to do with what we deem as acceptable or what we prefer. I learned this early on.
-This goes back to my first point, the diverse explanations of Lady Gaga in the hoax (and the illuminati at large). Is she showing us the evils as an example of what not to do/who not to follow? Or is she using these symbols as a middle finger saying “yeah I’m with them, so what?” Regardless, there are conflicting theories within the hoax about everyone presumably involved (including his own family). But even in the case of them we really don’t know what role they play regardless of how we fans feel about them individually (ie: Jermaine is an enemy, ally, or double agent). What I’m basically saying is “our opinion doesn’t matter” goes both ways, especially when we really don’t know if many of MJ’s statements are legitimate. In my defense though, MJ was quoted by one of his assistants as condemning homosexuality on biblical principles when some guy tried to ask him out (it’s credibility is questionable but it’s not based on my opinion).
Which actually makes you think about the illuminati in and of itself. They’re an evil organization but with ill-defined evilness. What exactly is their intention? Our own opinions also effect this issue as well.
His 30th anniversary was an event that took place prior to his ‘death’ and is not relevant to the ‘death hoax’ so of course he would have picked artists of the time. But the TII Concert tour was never meant to happen in the first place. It’s the main part of the hoax. So why would he bring attention to Lady Gaga in particular when there were a plethora of other artists? There were plenty of other ‘new’ (and safer) artists that he could have chosen. Michael has NEVER shied away from controversy. As it stands, Lady Gaga is the epitome of controversy. Do you honestly think that Michael would play it safe for his most innovative work yet?
I don't think everyone chosen to perform at the concerts were involved. I think some people were "chosen" unknowingly to make things look more legit (like the boy from Britain's got Talent). Also Lady Gaga was easily the biggest name in pop music in 2009, no one would’ve been a better choice to headline (or at least perform in between) the concert based on her sheer popularity.
What is said below has nothing to do with MJ.
Catholicism is NOT true Christianity. It is pagan Baal worship with a ‘Christian’ twist. This is not a matter of opinion. This is fact. All of its religious practices are derived from ancient pagan rituals. One would have to be blind not to see this.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, just because there is similarity doesn’t mean there derivation. Religious human sacrifices took place throughout the world, were they all derived from a single occasion? Now in the case of Catholicism, it’s ironically an example of what happens when sola scriptura is denied and the church is given equal grounds to the Bible. But pre-roman Christianity had a more cohesive message than we give credit for in the historical biblical criticism discourse; particularly if we give Paul’s epistles more historical priority than Mark.
The ‘broader Christian faith’ deserves to be criticized. They ostracize the gay community
It depends on how you define ostracize. If you mean something a la Westboro Baptist church then I agree. If you mean kicking gay people out of the church for simply being gay then I also agree. However, if you mean rethinking the church’s general position on homosexuality and marriage in general then I disagree (in the aspect of actions, not people). I’ll go into more detail here via PM if you want me to.
The issue of homosexuality is personal to me, I’d like to see a Christian justification (ie: reason for it NOT being sinful) of it that doesn’t involve a disingenuous political agenda. Or placing an expectation on God based on secular norms.
and anyone who disagrees with them and their man-inspired doctrine and are shocked when said groups reject their “eternal message of Salvation”.
Might want to elaborate here more because what you say doesn’t go without saying. <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
Hi WhiteNight...I have watched your new videos...for the last one I have not much to say. There sure seems to be a link with Lopez Tonight (show that I cannot watch) ... now I don't know to what extent this is important in the hoax but I see the link and you have explained it well in the video.
It makes me sad to know that few people wanted to testify in favor of Michael but it doesn't surprise me that much. There are a lot of hypocrites in the world of show business...people think more about themselves and their image rather than anything else. No integrity. There may be exceptions of course, there are always.
About the Arvizo family and how they ended up in Michael's life, obviously that was a TRAP, no way they came across Michael's life by chance especially with what happened after, it was all part of the devilish plot.
Now about the Roman Catholic Church obviously everything is done to hide the disgusting behavior of certain priests and the new pope reinforced their protection <!-- m -->http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... priests.do<!-- m --> ... and you don't hear that in the breaking news section...but we know who controls the media. The Church is powerful and the Vatican does what it wants, this new "law" gives power to the Vatican to handle themselves the cases...can you believe that? Now I think that they didn't go after Michael just in order to cover themselves there must be something else, it happened twice, so they were specifically after Michael Jackson for a reason. I remember your post about the connection between the dates of the allegations made against Michael and the priests scandals...now what happens if another scandal appears? This is why I had a doubt about the reasons connecting the events. I don't dismiss this is one of the reasons but I think there is something else...like their knowing that Michael was a threat (and still is) to them. What I'm trying to say is that they didn't picked up Michael just because he was the most famous person thinking that this would be enough for them to occupy the media with a "sensational" story and distract the people's attention away from them. They really have tried to bring Michael down. So like the Hoax there are certainly different layers of explanations. Thank you and God bless you.
Great videos! Here is an interesting “coincidence” that supports your theory about the Catholic Church cover-up. You may remember the Michael Jackson “faked death” countdown website and the subsequent Fountain of Youth and Saunders messages.
There is a Saunders Island in the South Atlantic Ocean with plenty of penguins (maybe the inspiration for the TII penguin dance move) and a Volcano in the centre called Mount Michael. Reference: <!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_I ... ch_Islands<!-- m -->
Coincidentally, there is a 1990 film with Tom Hanks entitled “Joe Versus the Volcano." This film was directed by John Patrick Shanley (<!-- m -->http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099892/<!-- m -->). The same John Patrick Shanley later directed a 2008 movie called “Doubt”:
The movie Doubt, which recently held its premiere at a Paris Theater, has been partly inspired by the follies of Michael Jackson. This was admitted by director John Patrick Shanley who directed the movie based on his play which was staged in Broadway in 2004, which almost coincides with the child molestation trial of Jackson.
The award winning play thrives on the conflict created by the allegations against Father Flynn one of which was that he has given liquor to a 12-year old boy. This scene, Shanley admits, was inspired by the “Jesus Juice” given by Michael Jackson to children who visited Neverland. This incident was discussed during the pop singer’s trial for which he was ultimately acquitted.
This early, Doubt which stars the award-winning Meryl Streep, is already creating a buzz in the awards circuit and is a strong contender for Oscar nominations in the Best Director, Screenplay, Best Actress as well as Supporting Actor and Actress categories.
Doubt may have been set in 1964 but there is no doubt that it is indeed very timely considering the scandals being faced by the Catholic Church and its priests today.
Washington, Dec 10 (ANI): The Doubt director John Patrick Shanley has said that the movie has been partly inspired by Michael Jackson.
The film, which Shanley directed from his 2004 Broadway play, was premiered to an all-star crowd at the Paris Theater on Dec 7.
He said that when Father Flynn is revealed in the award winning play to have given a 12-year-old boy liquor the incident was inspired by Michael Jackson having given “Jesus Juice” to children at Neverland.
The filmmaker revealed the connection on December 9 at the Four Seasons, where Miramax toasted him, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Viola Davis with a lunch celebrating the films opening.
And what looks like, Doubt is clicking perfect timing with Jackson the play opened on Broadway in November 2004 and the following March, during Jacksons child molestation trial, the whole “Jesus Juice” business was discussed in testimony.
However, Jackson was acquitted in June 2005, reports Fox News.
And the buzz is that the film is a strong contender for Oscar nominations in Best Actress, Supporting Actor and Actress, Screenplay, and Director.
While the film is set in 1964, but considering the Jackson connection and scandals concerning priests and the Catholic Church, Shanley said, “It couldnt be more timely.” (ANI)
In April 2002, the news of Father Paul Shanley (NO relation to the film director other than the same last name) and his pedophile activities broke out in the media.
Shanley, now 71, didn't just have sex with children; he publicly endorsed the concept. He didn't just use his collar to get access to minors; he ran a special ministry for the most vulnerable among them. And he didn't fly below the radar of the church hierarchy; the 818-page archive released by the Boston Archdiocese under court order shows that two Cardinals and a phalanx of deputies knew about allegations of his abuse going back more than 30 years. But instead of handing Shanley over to police or at least defrocking him, they ignored, protected or promoted him. More than 40 alleged victims have now claimed abuse.
If any scandal can bring down the most powerful Cardinal in the country, it could be this one. The steady drumbeat for the resignation of Bernard Cardinal Law grew louder last week, with the Boston Globe and some of Law's staunchest former defenders saying he must go. Several major donors to the diocese's Catholic Charities are withholding funds. Law issued a statement on Friday saying he intends to stay--but this drama is not over.
In October 2004 Father Paul Shanley was scheduled for trial for indecent assault and battery and for child rape.
Shanley, then Father Shanley, emerged as a central figure in the Catholic sexual abuse scandal from the day The Globe launched a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning articles about the church in January 2002. No other priest has received as much high-profile national press attention. Few others have faced trial.
When Shanley was released on $300,000 bail the following December, after seven months in jail, his lawyer used a body double to divert the media frenzy. When people in Provincetown on the tip of Cape Cod learned Shanley had taken up residence there, signs began appearing on lampposts, warning neighbors that a pedophile was in their midst.
Comments
Have you considered this possibility. If the Vatican is really the antichrist, as Martin Luther apparently suggested, would they not see MJ as a threat to their power? Did he know too much and/or was he so spiritually advanced he could take followers away from them, not just because of his fame? If history tells us anything, Messengers of God tend to stir things up and upset existing bureaucratic calcifying religious institutions and their leaders. After all, he does say Martin Luther and not Martin Luther KING. He's not sloppy. This was not a mistake.
-This goes back to my first point, the diverse explanations of Lady Gaga in the hoax (and the illuminati at large). Is she showing us the evils as an example of what not to do/who not to follow? Or is she using these symbols as a middle finger saying “yeah I’m with them, so what?” Regardless, there are conflicting theories within the hoax about everyone presumably involved (including his own family). But even in the case of them we really don’t know what role they play regardless of how we fans feel about them individually (ie: Jermaine is an enemy, ally, or double agent). What I’m basically saying is “our opinion doesn’t matter” goes both ways, especially when we really don’t know if many of MJ’s statements are legitimate. In my defense though, MJ was quoted by one of his assistants as condemning homosexuality on biblical principles when some guy tried to ask him out (it’s credibility is questionable but it’s not based on my opinion).
Which actually makes you think about the illuminati in and of itself. They’re an evil organization but with ill-defined evilness. What exactly is their intention? Our own opinions also effect this issue as well.
I don't think everyone chosen to perform at the concerts were involved. I think some people were "chosen" unknowingly to make things look more legit (like the boy from Britain's got Talent). Also Lady Gaga was easily the biggest name in pop music in 2009, no one would’ve been a better choice to headline (or at least perform in between) the concert based on her sheer popularity.
What is said below has nothing to do with MJ.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, just because there is similarity doesn’t mean there derivation. Religious human sacrifices took place throughout the world, were they all derived from a single occasion? Now in the case of Catholicism, it’s ironically an example of what happens when sola scriptura is denied and the church is given equal grounds to the Bible. But pre-roman Christianity had a more cohesive message than we give credit for in the historical biblical criticism discourse; particularly if we give Paul’s epistles more historical priority than Mark.
It depends on how you define ostracize. If you mean something a la Westboro Baptist church then I agree. If you mean kicking gay people out of the church for simply being gay then I also agree. However, if you mean rethinking the church’s general position on homosexuality and marriage in general then I disagree (in the aspect of actions, not people). I’ll go into more detail here via PM if you want me to.
The issue of homosexuality is personal to me, I’d like to see a Christian justification (ie: reason for it NOT being sinful) of it that doesn’t involve a disingenuous political agenda. Or placing an expectation on God based on secular norms.
Might want to elaborate here more because what you say doesn’t go without saying. <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
It makes me sad to know that few people wanted to testify in favor of Michael but it doesn't surprise me that much. There are a lot of hypocrites in the world of show business...people think more about themselves and their image rather than anything else. No integrity. There may be exceptions of course, there are always.
About the Arvizo family and how they ended up in Michael's life, obviously that was a TRAP, no way they came across Michael's life by chance especially with what happened after, it was all part of the devilish plot.
Now about the Roman Catholic Church obviously everything is done to hide the disgusting behavior of certain priests and the new pope reinforced their protection <!-- m -->http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... priests.do<!-- m --> ... and you don't hear that in the breaking news section...but we know who controls the media. The Church is powerful and the Vatican does what it wants, this new "law" gives power to the Vatican to handle themselves the cases...can you believe that? Now I think that they didn't go after Michael just in order to cover themselves there must be something else, it happened twice, so they were specifically after Michael Jackson for a reason. I remember your post about the connection between the dates of the allegations made against Michael and the priests scandals...now what happens if another scandal appears? This is why I had a doubt about the reasons connecting the events. I don't dismiss this is one of the reasons but I think there is something else...like their knowing that Michael was a threat (and still is) to them. What I'm trying to say is that they didn't picked up Michael just because he was the most famous person thinking that this would be enough for them to occupy the media with a "sensational" story and distract the people's attention away from them. They really have tried to bring Michael down. So like the Hoax there are certainly different layers of explanations. Thank you and God bless you.
Great videos! Here is an interesting “coincidence” that supports your theory about the Catholic Church cover-up. You may remember the Michael Jackson “faked death” countdown website and the subsequent Fountain of Youth and Saunders messages.
There is a Saunders Island in the South Atlantic Ocean with plenty of penguins (maybe the inspiration for the TII penguin dance move) and a Volcano in the centre called Mount Michael.
Reference: <!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_I ... ch_Islands<!-- m -->
Coincidentally, there is a 1990 film with Tom Hanks entitled “Joe Versus the Volcano." This film was directed by John Patrick Shanley (<!-- m -->http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099892/<!-- m -->). The same John Patrick Shanley later directed a 2008 movie called “Doubt”:
Reference: <!-- m -->http://www.celebbinge.com/2008/12/12/mi ... res-doubt/<!-- m -->
Reference: <!-- m -->http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/ind ... 29286.html<!-- m -->
In April 2002, the news of Father Paul Shanley (NO relation to the film director other than the same last name) and his pedophile activities broke out in the media.
Reference: <!-- m -->http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html<!-- m -->
In October 2004 Father Paul Shanley was scheduled for trial for indecent assault and battery and for child rape.
Reference: <!-- m -->http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Sept ... poct04.msp<!-- m -->
If, as BACK pointed out many times, there are no coincidences, then what is MICHAEL trying to tell us here!
With L.O.V.E
mjintrigue2012 & TheRunningGirl