Re: Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th.

by Rach Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:19 am

@ Banessa, you're so sweet to make the topic a sticky Hon! Thankies Smile

I just wanted to add that the point of this thread was to get people to think and look at the possibility that there has been a double who was prominent in Michael's life for many years. I by no means want to say this was ALL the time, but by looking at the evidence for me and several others it seems to show that 80% of the time we weren't seeing the "real" Michael.

It's good to see some debates coming back onto the forum TBH and I respect everyone's opinions 100%, even those who don't agree with the theory. Thanks again for reading Smile

by SeeingClues Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:32 am

MyBelovedMJ wrote:They are ALL Michael. Every singel link.
Michael havent used a imposter at any of his concerts or live performences ever.
He has seen them perform live, but never on one of his shows, I mean insteadt of him.

Its also Michael at LWMJ In all of them
BTW That "Rock my world performence" I got sick in my stomack watching it. But it still sat me on fire aswell.
Michael is to damn hot, when he does this performence. HOLY JESUS

Michael has changed ofcause, we all do,, as we get older, but not to the unregonizeble.

I agree..100%..same Michael through the years. Perhaps a double occassionally to fool the Paps but not for concerts, videos, appearances.

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:59 am

by illusionist Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:59 am

I believe this whole time it has always been Michael. Keep in mind, he has had a bunch of surgeries and work done and has gotten older. The one thing you cannot change about him is his eyes and his aura. Comparing Michael from the early 80s to now I can still see it's the same Michael I've always known.

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:01 am

i postes a timeline above which i got from some german magazine i believe "stern"

i dont think its MJ everywhere just look at some pictures please

by illusionist Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:06 am

Also, he's always had the same smile. Can't change that.

by rowdyangel Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:10 am

phoenix wrote:i postes a timeline above which i got from some german magazine i believe "stern"

i dont think its MJ everywhere just look at some pictures please

91, 94 and 98 stand out to me in that set of pics. I've taken into account the numerous surgeries throughout the years, but those particular pics just look odd. But that's just my opinion.

by yaya Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:11 am

on the 2006 picture, is that the same from the WMA video in the first post? it looks the same to me, and if i'm not mistaken, his eyes look a little puffy underneath. so that gives the illusion that his eyes are smaller. i get really bad allergies and sometimes my eyes get the same way.

by illusionist Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:11 am

phoenix wrote:i postes a timeline above which i got from some german magazine i believe "stern"

i dont think its MJ everywhere just look at some pictures please

I did look and I still stand by what I said. Maybe if we can find pictures from each era or year
that shows his teeth?

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:15 am

on this line really odd look for me 2 pics 1986 and 1994

look on 1986 something is wrong with that one isnt it? because in 1987 he looks bit darker again...

i honestly dont know

by Rach Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:17 am

Thanks for posting your pictures Ann!

I will have a look at them and see what I can make of them Smile

xoxo

by DreamsComeTrue Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:20 am

The photos from 1994, 1995 and 1996 I don't think they are supposed to be there!
At least th one from 1995 (my pc background) is from 2005....just 10 YEARS LATER! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Affraid

Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Affraid

Anyway, if there are 2, I LOVE THEM BOTH...I can't choose (I don't know who is who if there are two Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_mad

)

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:22 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by DreamsComeTrue Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:23 am

phoenix wrote:on this line really odd look for me 2 pics 1986 and 1994

look on 1986 something is wrong with that one isnt it? because in 1987 he looks bit darker again...

i honestly dont know

Because it's NOT the correct order!
I made a timeline myself, but is in Power point and I don't know how to post it! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_mad

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:26 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:27 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by DreamsComeTrue Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:28 am

Quote Human_Nature:

ok, I don't know who made the time line in that magazine with pictures, but, they made mistakes.

1970 ---> It's not Michael, but his brother. I think it's Tito, but I'm not sure.

This is Michael in 1970 :

Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Babyface

Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Babyface

and 1986, it was michael in 1986 ----> Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 F3ybkblsxz81slzb

And to be honest, the dates in this magazine with the pictures they show, are not always good.

You can do you own research Wink

[/quote]

Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Lol

Almost brain sisters?... Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_eek

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:35 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:50 am

Good job.
Honestly I didnt´have the time to read all replies now, so sorry if this was mentioned, but I always wondered about two interviews from 1993, the one with Oprah and the one with Barbara Walters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu8QBHBFn2I&feature=related (took a cute one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRV_zpRiyqc (it was 93, wasnt it??)

and another one, with Molly Meldrum from 96, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtpbJk_HnS8

What do you guys think?

by mjthelegendlives Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:51 am

Human_nature wrote:Why you all base your conclusions on magazines ?

You can search and make a better timeline.

If I need to do it, I will, for you, but well...

Yes, please do!

HN...May I suggest to start another thread? This is Rach and Bid's thread Smile

...thanks

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:56 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:58 am

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:59 am

Human_nature wrote:
GirlInTheMirror1 wrote:Good job.
Honestly I didnt´have the time to read all replies now, so sorry if this was mentioned, but I always wondered about two interviews from 1993, the one with Oprah and the one with Barbara Walters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu8QBHBFn2I&feature=related (took a cute one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRV_zpRiyqc (it was 93, wasnt it??)

and another one, with Molly Meldrum from 96, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtpbJk_HnS8

What do you guys think?

Barbara Walters interview -----> 1997

Oh, ok, thanks. But well, nonetheless, huge difference.. even if there are a few years in between.

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:03 pm

I think I will really show you all, what's the correct timeline. Not based on BS magazines.

guys i really dont understand why there is a need to bitch around on some posts just because you think that something is not right? if you think, that you can research and do it better that i would really be glad to see your results but i think there is no need to get rude because thats how it seems to me to be- of course i am sorry if i misunderstood your intention

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:10 pm

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:14 pm

Human_nature wrote:
phoenix wrote:I think I will really show you all, what's the correct timeline. Not based on BS magazines.

guys i really dont understand why there is a need to bitch around on some posts just because you think that something is not right? if you think, that you can research and do it better that i would really be glad to see your results but i think there is no need to get rude because thats how it seems to me to be- of course i am sorry if i misunderstood your intention

ok now I'm rude ?

because I told you this is BS magazines ?

I think you should know with all we saw in the magazines about Michael.

If you really think I'm bitch and rude let me know right now.

I think she didn´t say you´re a bitch, she talked about "bitching around", and she referred to "guys", so it´s not (just) you.
Chill out guys (not just to you). Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_smile

We´re all here for the same purpose, we should get along. Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_biggrin

by mjthelegendlives Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:14 pm

phoenix wrote:I think I will really show you all, what's the correct timeline. Not based on BS magazines.

guys i really dont understand why there is a need to bitch around on some posts just because you think that something is not right? if you think, that you can research and do it better that i would really be glad to see your results but i think there is no need to get rude because thats how it seems to me to be- of course i am sorry if i misunderstood your intention

I'm sorry, but I dont think she was being rude, she's just trying to prove that the magazine's dates on timelines are incorrect...

1970 - Doesn't look like MJ
1986, 1990 and 1994 - are NOT in the correct place

I'm looking forward to see your timeline HN!

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:16 pm

Human_nature wrote:
phoenix wrote:I think I will really show you all, what's the correct timeline. Not based on BS magazines.

guys i really dont understand why there is a need to bitch around on some posts just because you think that something is not right? if you think, that you can research and do it better that i would really be glad to see your results but i think there is no need to get rude because thats how it seems to me to be- of course i am sorry if i misunderstood your intention

ok now I'm rude ?

because I told you this is BS magazines ?

I think you should know with all we saw in the magazines about Michael.

If you really think I'm bitch and rude let me know right now.

i dont know why you get mad- i dont remember calling your name. to me is this topic OVER right now

by phoenix Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:17 pm

GirlInTheMirror1 wrote:
Human_nature wrote:
phoenix wrote:I think I will really show you all, what's the correct timeline. Not based on BS magazines.

guys i really dont understand why there is a need to bitch around on some posts just because you think that something is not right? if you think, that you can research and do it better that i would really be glad to see your results but i think there is no need to get rude because thats how it seems to me to be- of course i am sorry if i misunderstood your intention

ok now I'm rude ?

because I told you this is BS magazines ?

I think you should know with all we saw in the magazines about Michael.

If you really think I'm bitch and rude let me know right now.

I think she didn´t say you´re a bitch, she talked about "bitching around", and she referred to "guys", so it´s not (just) you.
Chill out guys (not just to you). We´re all here for the same purpose, we should get along.

LOL

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:19 pm

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by Rach Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:20 pm

I didn't mean for the topic to be one of confrontation so I apologise for that.

I am REALLY interested to see other peoples takes on this so I will await future timelines and will draw more conclusions from there Smile

by ishealive Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:21 pm

Human_nature wrote:
Rach wrote: and if you don't believe it simply move on and don't comment and myself and Bidoska will not justify our findings.

ok so..no comment

@Human Nature Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Lol

Very well put together guys, I agree on some parts.

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:21 pm

Human_nature wrote:ok great ..mods, you can LOL as you want.

And you're right, it's over.

Why are you so sensitive? Really this is not about you. I am just wondering why all those misunderstandings lead to fights, which is unnecessary, I really mean that with getting along. Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_smile

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:23 pm

Human_nature wrote:ok great ..mods, you can LOL as you want.

And you're right, it's over.

and i´m looking forward to seeing your timeline. :-)

by Human_nature Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:24 pm

Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day."

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:28 pm

Human_nature wrote:
GirlInTheMirror1 wrote:
Human_nature wrote:ok great ..mods, you can LOL as you want.

And you're right, it's over.

Why are you so sensitive? Really this is not about you. I am just wondering why all those misunderstandings lead to fights, which is unnecessary, I really mean that with getting along.

maybe because I'm human

I guess this is "human nature"! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_cool

But don´t be. I think most of us are a bit sensitive right now, but most of the things that are being said is just to keep the peace, and it may be received the wrong way.

by mjthelegendlives Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:29 pm

ok first of all this isnt the thread to argue about being rude, sensitive and what not. This is Rach and Bido's thread. And as for HN, of course she has to be sensitive...one of our MODS just used the words "b*tch around" while quoting HN's words...this is my last comment on this anyway... Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_neutral

by DreamsComeTrue Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:35 pm

Rach wrote:I didn't mean for the topic to be one of confrontation so I apologise for that.

I am REALLY interested to see other peoples takes on this so I will await future timelines and will draw more conclusions from there

You are so sweet!

At the end of the day we all want to find out the truth! Thanks for understanding!

Personally I want to look twice and do my own research just to prove myself witch is Michael and witch is the double! I don't want to feel guilty after because I transformed Michael into someone else!

The truth is there are some photos where it's obvious not Michael! But are just few!
I just don't agree that he sent someone else to attend public events in his place! Maybe he did, but not in the important ones!

By the way, I'm glad you're back! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_biggrin

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:37 pm

By the way, I'm glad you're back! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_biggrin

[/quote]

Me too

by Banessa Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:07 pm

I don't mean this in any disrespectful way and I don't mean to offend anyone either! I really don't but Seriously guys, are you all kidding me, I can't believe we can't have someone expose a theory and have people get all bent out of shape about it Just because they don't agree! Definition of theory: A speculation and a Hypothesis. In no way does it mean a theory is 100% TRUE! There is no need to jump on each other just because we disagree with someone's point of view! We are here to have discussions but if we can't do it respectfully or w/out getting mad lets just move on! before we hurt each other...Shamoan!!!

I agree that Michael had surgeries but in the interview with Bashir he stated he only had 2 surgeries done. So how can someone's face change so much other then from age and only 2 surgeries were done. Michael stated himself once that we only see what he wanted us to see, when he wanted and how he wanted. He had many doubles and that is not a secret. Will knowing that MJ used a double for the last years make me love him less, Nope. I give him credit for having the courage and the brilliance to pull something like that off and not get caught! Wink

Michael you are just amazing...Einstain has nothing on you!!! I love you more!

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:10 pm

Banessa wrote:I don't mean this in any disrespectful way and I don't mean to offend anyone either! I really don't but Seriously guys, are you all kidding me, I can't believe we can't have someone expose a theory and have people get all bent out of shape about it Just because they don't agree! Definition of theory: A speculation and a Hypothesis. In no way does it mean a theory is 100% TRUE! There is no need to jump on each other just because we disagree with someone's point of view! We are here to have discussions but if we can't do it respectfully or w/out getting mad lets just move on! before we hurt each other...Shamoan!!!

I agree that Michael had surgeries but in the interview with Bashir he stated he only had 2 surgeries done. So how can someone's face change so much other then from age and only 2 surgeries were done. Michael stated himself once that we only see what he wanted us to see, when he wanted and how he wanted. He had many doubles and that is not a secret. Will knowing that MJ used a double for the last years make me love him less, Nope. I give him credit for having the courage and the brilliance to pull something like that off and not get caught! Michael you are just amazing...Einstain has nothing on you!!! I love you more!

Thanks, great post!

Now my question to this hoaxing-his-death-years-ago.
If this is the case, and if there will be a comeback...who will come back? The real MJ, just after a rest of...like 16 years?? Maybe we wouldn´t even believe it´s him because he looks so fresh and young and not sick at all! Michael did indeed hoax his death/vanish.....but not on June 25th. - Page 2 Icon_cheers

by The Little White Bird Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:17 pm

95% of people are in total agreement that the person we saw at the o2 conference was not Michael Jackson.
If that wasn't Michael Jackson, what would make you so sure that at most of the other times it was him?
I went to his Bad concert and Dangerous tour and i can tell you that after 1993, he not only hasn't looked the same (except during the history tour where he suddenly reverted back to looking exactly the same and then looked weird again straight after) he never performed the same again either (except the history tour)
Look at any footage pre 1993 and compare it to anything after that (except the history tour) Not the same person.
I'm sure that had the 'This is it' tour taken place then the real Michael jackson would have taken to the stage as it looks like him in the clips dancing (but not in any other clips) so therefore either
a: He actually did die
b: the other bloke died,
c: the movie theory is correct or
d: he's still alive but he's stepped out of the spotlight and created himself an impressive Elvis like legacy.

The fact is after 1993, i noticed that whenever MJ was filmed or in the paper, it wasn't him. I may have got used to him as being MJ but it wasn't the same person. Just because you desperately want something to be true, does not make it so. The only person that knows/knew the truth is the man himself.

by Rach Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:25 pm

The Little White Bird wrote:95% of people are in total agreement that the person we saw at the o2 conference was not Michael Jackson.
If that wasn't Michael Jackson, what would make you so sure that at most of the other times it was him?
I went to his Bad concert and Dangerous tour and i can tell you that after 1993, he not only hasn't looked the same (except during the history tour where he suddenly reverted back to looking exactly the same and then looked weird again straight after) he never performed the same again either (except the history tour)
Look at any footage pre 1993 and compare it to anything after that (except the history tour) Not the same person.
I'm sure that had the 'This is it' tour taken place then the real Michael jackson would have taken to the stage as it looks like him in the clips dancing (but not in any other clips) so therefore either
a: He actually did die
b: the other bloke died,
c: the movie theory is correct or
d: he's still alive but he's stepped out of the spotlight and created himself an impressive Elvis like legacy.

The fact is after 1993, i noticed that whenever MJ was filmed or in the paper, it wasn't him. I may have got used to him as being MJ but it wasn't the same person. Just because you desperately want something to be true, does not make it so. The only person that knows/knew the truth is the man himself.

Ok I officially love you! This is the point that I wanted to get across but I think I may have explained it wrong!

Please drop me a PM sometime because I think we are on the same wavelength and I would love to discuss this more with you Smile

by GirlSaturday Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:34 pm

Could these visable changes among the various MJ's have also fueled rumors and speculation about MJ's mental state of mind? Tabloids may have noticed physical changes and attributed the changes more to MJ's character than his body? They may not have been able to fully pinpoint what was different or "wrong" with MJ. Soooo they may have naturally taken the cheap shots at his personality/character/mind because it made for good gossip stories.

The Little White Bird wrote:95% of people are in total agreement that the person we saw at the o2 conference was not Michael Jackson.
If that wasn't Michael Jackson, what would make you so sure that at most of the other times it was him?
I went to his Bad concert and Dangerous tour and i can tell you that after 1993, he not only hasn't looked the same (except during the history tour where he suddenly reverted back to looking exactly the same and then looked weird again straight after) he never performed the same again either (except the history tour)
Look at any footage pre 1993 and compare it to anything after that (except the history tour) Not the same person.
I'm sure that had the 'This is it' tour taken place then the real Michael jackson would have taken to the stage as it looks like him in the clips dancing (but not in any other clips) so therefore either
a: He actually did die
b: the other bloke died,
c: the movie theory is correct or
d: he's still alive but he's stepped out of the spotlight and created himself an impressive Elvis like legacy.

The fact is after 1993, i noticed that whenever MJ was filmed or in the paper, it wasn't him. I may have got used to him as being MJ but it wasn't the same person. Just because you desperately want something to be true, does not make it so. The only person that knows/knew the truth is the man himself.

by The Little White Bird Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:38 pm

Could these visable changes among the various
MJ's have also fueled rumors and speculation about MJ's mental state of
mind? Tabloids may have noticed physical changes and attributed the
changes more to MJ's character than his body? They may not have been
able to fully pinpoint what was different or "wrong" with MJ. Soooo
they may have naturally taken the cheap shots at his
personality/character/mind because it made for good gossip stories.

To be fair, they were picking on him way before '93 which is probably why he had enough. I think the Jordan Chandler scandal was the icing on the cake

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:39 pm

The Little White Bird wrote:95% of people are in total agreement that the person we saw at the o2 conference was not Michael Jackson.
If that wasn't Michael Jackson, what would make you so sure that at most of the other times it was him?
I went to his Bad concert and Dangerous tour and i can tell you that after 1993, he not only hasn't looked the same (except during the history tour where he suddenly reverted back to looking exactly the same and then looked weird again straight after) he never performed the same again either (except the history tour)
Look at any footage pre 1993 and compare it to anything after that (except the history tour) Not the same person.
I'm sure that had the 'This is it' tour taken place then the real Michael jackson would have taken to the stage as it looks like him in the clips dancing (but not in any other clips) so therefore either
a: He actually did die
b: the other bloke died,
c: the movie theory is correct or
d: he's still alive but he's stepped out of the spotlight and created himself an impressive Elvis like legacy.

The fact is after 1993, i noticed that whenever MJ was filmed or in the paper, it wasn't him. I may have got used to him as being MJ but it wasn't the same person. Just because you desperately want something to be true, does not make it so. The only person that knows/knew the truth is the man himself.

Great, exactly! I just wonder what is going to happen, if there will be a comeback or whatever. But I think you´re right.

by Rach Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:40 pm

GirlSaturday wrote:Could these visable changes among the various MJ's have also fueled rumors and speculation about MJ's mental state of mind? Tabloids may have noticed physical changes and attributed the changes more to MJ's character than his body? They may not have been able to fully pinpoint what was different or "wrong" with MJ. Soooo they may have naturally taken the cheap shots at his personality/character/mind because it made for good gossip stories.

I know this wasn't asked of me but I just wanted to add my bit!

I think you have a great point GirlSaturday and one I hadn't picked up on so thank you! You will notice that before 1993 Michael was the "golden boy" so to speak. Everyone loved him and he could do no wrong. After the 1993 allegations people started to change their perceptions of him. He was labeled "Wacko Jacko" and mostly only had negative press aimed at him.

by GirlInTheMirror1 Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:40 pm

The Little White Bird wrote:
Could these visable changes among the various
MJ's have also fueled rumors and speculation about MJ's mental state of
mind? Tabloids may have noticed physical changes and attributed the
changes more to MJ's character than his body? They may not have been
able to fully pinpoint what was different or "wrong" with MJ. Soooo
they may have naturally taken the cheap shots at his
personality/character/mind because it made for good gossip stories.

To be fair, they were picking on him way before '93 which is probably why he had enough. I think the Jordan Chandler scandal was the icing on the cake

Maybe this is when he thought "Wtf (or so..), this is my life"...

by hungry Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:42 pm

The Little White Bird wrote:95% of people are in total agreement that the person we saw at the o2 conference was not Michael Jackson.
If that wasn't Michael Jackson, what would make you so sure that at most of the other times it was him?
I went to his Bad concert and Dangerous tour and i can tell you that after 1993, he not only hasn't looked the same (except during the history tour where he suddenly reverted back to looking exactly the same and then looked weird again straight after) he never performed the same again either (except the history tour)
Look at any footage pre 1993 and compare it to anything after that (except the history tour) Not the same person.
I'm sure that had the 'This is it' tour taken place then the real Michael jackson would have taken to the stage as it looks like him in the clips dancing (but not in any other clips) so therefore either
a: He actually did die
b: the other bloke died,
c: the movie theory is correct or
d: he's still alive but he's stepped out of the spotlight and created himself an impressive Elvis like legacy.

The fact is after 1993, i noticed that whenever MJ was filmed or in the paper, it wasn't him. I may have got used to him as being MJ but it wasn't the same person. Just because you desperately want something to be true, does not make it so. The only person that knows/knew the truth is the man himself.

AMAZING. I agree, he only looks the same when he's on tour. Other than that, he looks completely different.
Does he use doubles for interviews and appearances, and only shows up as himself when performing? (I think I read that in someone's theory).

by The Little White Bird Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:43 pm

I think you have a great point GirlSaturday and
one I hadn't picked up on so thank you! You will notice that before
1993 Michael was the "golden boy" so to speak. Everyone loved him and
he could do no wrong. After the 1993 allegations people started to
change their perceptions of him. He was labeled "Wacko Jacko" and
mostly only had negative press aimed at him.

They were calling him wacko jacko in '88 around the time he turned white, just before bad was released

by Sponsored content