riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:15:37 GMT -5
You realize your "research" is just as one sided if not more and usually quoting sources with just as much or more of a monetary interest as those you attack. At BEST I can only believe what he did was stupidly inappropriate, which is still something I am not willing to excuse from someone who otherwise was so smart and had so many people trying to protect his reputation. I've actually been against his behavior since the nineties so I am not new to this train or being emotionally manipulated. Why do people dismiss his accusers if they even smell a dollar but readily believe Michael's family, lawyers, and others financially dependent on his relevance? Because rather than tell their story they attempted to sue the Estate for $1.5 billion dollars. If it isn't about the money why sue? How come no one is questioning "Why didn't you say anything earlier as adults? If he truly was this monster, you could've been saving other kids from similar circumstances." For arguments sake let's say he was doing it, then they need to be put in jail for being perpetrators in the process for taking part in covering up his crimes. But since he didn't commit a crime I am going to stand firmly behind the belief and FACTS of research that it's nothing more than a money grab.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 28, 2019 12:17:16 GMT -5
The funny (in the not so haha way) is that almost all these defenses for Michael are almost word for word what I had heard from church elders and loyalists when the Catholic scandals broke. Why wait? Just cash. Troubled stories. Unreliable people aren't trustworthy. It's a conspiracy to take down an empire. Nobody REALLY knows if you weren't there. Who's to say what's inappropriate for regular people isn't acceptable for a priest? How about some actual research and evidence and not just emotional manipulation? Truth be told, if someone came along and disputed this with facts and evidence, then I would be inclined to believe them. It's not that I worship Michael Jackson. I just believe in evidence. Here's some evidence that isn't disputed. He slept with boys. Is that ok? He had a naked picture of one of the boys. Is that ok? He still did this AFTER he was told by the world at large this was inappropriate. Is that ok? He did all this after he had to pay off one family and a hoard of lawyers and publicists to rehab is image. Is that still ok?
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 12:19:05 GMT -5
Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. That may very well be the case too. However, by that same logic Weinstein has been behind some of the greatest films ever made, so you could claim that people don't want to believe he's capable of something horrible either. There is proof that Michael is innocent, there is proof that he was a victim of many extortion attempts, there is proof of the FBI, LAPD, and many other law enforcement agencies investigating him with and without his knowledge(the FBI investigation), he was acquitted of 14 counts of child molestation, and many forms of independent information is easily accessed by our best friend Google. People just don't want to educate themselves anymore and they blindly follow a clickbait article or a one sided "documentary". Shame on you, dude. You are using words that like "proof" and "acquitted." Apparently, that is not something that is allowed when there is a one-sided, emotionally manipulative documentary at play.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 12:22:33 GMT -5
How about some actual research and evidence and not just emotional manipulation? Truth be told, if someone came along and disputed this with facts and evidence, then I would be inclined to believe them. It's not that I worship Michael Jackson. I just believe in evidence. Here's some evidence that isn't disputed. He slept with boys. Is that ok? He had a naked picture of one of the boys. Is that ok? He still did this AFTER he was told by the world at large this was inappropriate. Is that ok? He did all this after he had to pay off one family and a hoard of lawyers and publicists to rehab is image. Is that still ok? The videos disputed ALL of those claims and he articulated it much better than I can. Also, weren't Robson and Safechuck both laughed out of court?
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:23:06 GMT -5
I am going to state a painfully obvious fact. Think of the media coverage Michael received in 1993 and 2005 when he was accused of child molestation. Michael Jackson was one of the biggest, most world renowned, and influential artist of any and all generations. His talent along with his visionary aspects in terms of innovating the concept of music videos remains untouched. The debut of his many classic music videos or "short films" as he called them were MTV and VH1 events.
His albums and songs broke many records which still stand the test of time. Now I want EVERYONE to think about this before jumping to conclusions.
Just think of what a guilty verdict would've done for television and other media outlets. Think about the book and film deals, think about the ratings, think about the merchandise, Michael's death alone broke the Internet temporarily, think about the actual documentaries, think about the MONEY and coverage Michael received just being in handcuffs temporarily. Does anyone honestly believe that if he was guilty they would've just let all of that potential slide? Think people.
This isn't a case like OJ or R.Kelly. Neither of which are on Michael's level as far as stature is concerned, realistically no one is nor will anyone ever get close to that status. Does anyone truly believe that the media(which took part in slandering his name) would allow something so "easy" according to a lot of people here would let that slip?
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Mar 28, 2019 12:25:09 GMT -5
Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. That may very well be the case too. However, by that same logic Weinstein has been behind some of the greatest films ever made, so you could claim that people don't want to believe he's capable of something horrible either. There is proof that Michael is innocent, there is proof that he was a victim of many extortion attempts, there is proof of the FBI, LAPD, and many other law enforcement agencies investigating him with and without his knowledge(the FBI investigation), he was acquitted of 14 counts of child molestation, and many forms of independent information is easily accessed by our best friend Google. People just don't want to educate themselves anymore and they blindly follow a clickbait article or a one sided "documentary". I do have a brain, you know. Not agreeing with you and your sources - that, in my opinion, seem a little dubious and convenient for perpetuating confirmation bias - doesn't equate to people being lazy and stupid. Since we're talking sources, here, do you know what really sticks with me? The DA for the Jordan Chandler case stating that Jordan knew specific body markings in specific private places on Michael's body that no one would know by accident. That's not coming from no one connected to the case out of nowhere. It's completely dismissive to hand wave anyone who sees something differently than you as willfully ignorant and blind. It doesn't help you state your case, either.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:30:34 GMT -5
How about some actual research and evidence and not just emotional manipulation? Truth be told, if someone came along and disputed this with facts and evidence, then I would be inclined to believe them. It's not that I worship Michael Jackson. I just believe in evidence. Here's some evidence that isn't disputed. He slept with boys. Is that ok? He had a naked picture of one of the boys. Is that ok? He still did this AFTER he was told by the world at large this was inappropriate. Is that ok? He did all this after he had to pay off one family and a hoard of lawyers and publicists to rehab is image. Is that still ok? 1) His bedroom was two stories and it was proven that there were other adults and girls in the same vicinity too. 2) He didn't have a naked picture of a boy. He had a book that is actually considered art with an inscription written by him. The book showed naked children not performing any kind of sexual act but being carefree and remaining innocent. 3) He didn't pay off anyone. His insurance company did. He originally wanted to fight the charges in 1993 and was advised by his insurance companies, his lawyers, and many other of his friends that it would be in his best interest both financially and health wise to settle. A pedophile isn't going to allow anyone to photograph his naked body to identify certain parts of his skin, a pedophile isn't going to admit on national television while also under charges that he sleeps his children, and a pedophile isn't going to allow a camera crew into his house on many occasions.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:31:41 GMT -5
That may very well be the case too. However, by that same logic Weinstein has been behind some of the greatest films ever made, so you could claim that people don't want to believe he's capable of something horrible either. There is proof that Michael is innocent, there is proof that he was a victim of many extortion attempts, there is proof of the FBI, LAPD, and many other law enforcement agencies investigating him with and without his knowledge(the FBI investigation), he was acquitted of 14 counts of child molestation, and many forms of independent information is easily accessed by our best friend Google. People just don't want to educate themselves anymore and they blindly follow a clickbait article or a one sided "documentary". I do have a brain, you know. Not agreeing with you and your sources - that, in my opinion, seem a little dubious and convenient for perpetuating confirmation bias - doesn't equate to people being lazy and stupid. Since we're talking sources, here, do you know what really sticks with me? The DA for the Jordan Chandler case stating that Jordan knew specific body markings in specific private places on Michael's body that no one would know by accident. That's not coming from no one connected to the case out of nowhere. It's completely dismissive to hand wave anyone who sees something differently than you as willfully ignorant and blind. It doesn't help you state your case, either. You do realize Jordan's description didn't match right? You have your opinion and I have mine. Obviously your mind is made up and that's okay too. I choose to educate myself on facts and not on salacious clickbait tabloid material. We'll agree to disagree.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:34:02 GMT -5
Disclaimer: Language Warning.
Eddie Griffin going in on the happenings of Hollywood and discussing in lengths of the Michael Jackson accusations.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Mar 28, 2019 12:36:19 GMT -5
I do have a brain, you know. Not agreeing with you and your sources - that, in my opinion, seem a little dubious and convenient for perpetuating confirmation bias - doesn't equate to people being lazy and stupid. Since we're talking sources, here, do you know what really sticks with me? The DA for the Jordan Chandler case stating that Jordan knew specific body markings in specific private places on Michael's body that no one would know by accident. That's not coming from no one connected to the case out of nowhere. It's completely dismissive to hand wave anyone who sees something differently than you as willfully ignorant and blind. It doesn't help you state your case, either. You do realize Jordan's description didn't match right? You have your opinion and I have mine. Obviously your mind is made up and that's okay too. I choose to educate myself on facts and not on salacious clickbait tabloid material. We'll agree to disagree. This is exactly what I was *just* talking about. And if you really want to go there, you also went into an R. Kelly thread proclaiming we should all "look at the facts" before "jumping to conclusions" when you did about 0% research into the case at all. You're taking this entirely too personally, and being insulting to others in the process. Not sure what that's all about, but I hope you someday realize that you'll never, ever get people to consider your stance when you talk to them that way.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:38:45 GMT -5
This is also under public record. Michael, while under the effects of Propofol(spelling?) was recorded by Dr. Conrad Murray. Anyone who is slowly being placed under some form of sedative it's confirmed that their true thoughts emerge. Reason I know this is because when I went to have my wisdom teeth removed, while I was under the dentist and my parents said that during the procedure I confessed to watch porn with a friend during a sleepover(never told my parents beforehand).
No one would've knew about that detail let alone the dentist who had no reason to lie obviously. Under the sedative Michael mentioned about building a children's hospital for the sick and less fortunate. Under no circumstances did he confess to molesting children while under a sedative. That would've been the easiest and perfect opportunity to get a confession out of him.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:39:10 GMT -5
You do realize Jordan's description didn't match right? You have your opinion and I have mine. Obviously your mind is made up and that's okay too. I choose to educate myself on facts and not on salacious clickbait tabloid material. We'll agree to disagree. This is exactly what I was *just* talking about. And if you really want to go there, you also went into an R. Kelly thread proclaiming we should all "look at the facts" before "jumping to conclusions" when you did about 0% research into the case at all. You're taking this entirely too personally, and being insulting to others in the process. Not sure what that's all about, but I hope you someday realize that you'll never, ever get people to consider your stance when you talk to them that way. Again, you have your beliefs and I have mine. I am through with the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 28, 2019 12:51:35 GMT -5
Are we really doing whataboutisms about ignoring Harvey Weinstein when his history of sexual abuse and assault launched a movement of hundreds of victims telling their stories about powerful and influential sexual abusers to the point where the people who came forward were named Time's People Of The Year? Are you f***ing kidding me right now?
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Mar 28, 2019 14:35:35 GMT -5
I think Harvey Weinstein abused MJ.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 28, 2019 15:48:22 GMT -5
Regardless of whether MJ did it or not, Dan Reed is cross-examined and obliterated by this panel on a French news show.
I don't understand French, but his body language suggests he is very uncomfortable when confronted by a professional child abuse psychologist, a writer and an MJ fan.
Please turn on English subtitles to watch if not familiar with the language.
Summary:-
- Psychologist questions Wadw and James' family upbringing, the fact that sueing Jackson estate for money won't heal them from the trauma and doesn't think much of the mothers in the documentary - She also points out Wade's father was a victim of sexual abuse and says victims of child abuse will often accuse someone other than the perpetrator to feel safe. So is Jackson a scapegoat for another abuser she wonders. - Reed is presented with a letter from Wade to Jackson estate to say he wants to work in the Cirque de Soleil production, but Reed claims he has seen another letter where Wade pulls out of the project. Reed is questioned where is the paper evidence of this letter, and why he didn't feel it was important to the narrative in his documentary. - a point is made that if these two are telling the truth, then 15 other children defending Jackson are liars. The panel cites #metoo and Catholic priests and say as soon as one victim spoke out, it opens the floodgates for other victims to speak out. With Jackson, no one else has spoken out. - another boy, Brett Barnes, asked for his name to be removed from the documentary as he doesn't want to be associated with abuse that never happened but is implied. Dan Reed chooses to ignore this, and is called out as a man with a story line rather than facts to show in his film. - Wade auctioning off Jackson memorabilia for hundreds of thousands of dollars is pointed out, and this is before he "remembered" he was abused.
Dan Reed doesn't come off looking good. A man in a silent panic with nothing concrete to show about the subject of his film. He started stumbling when challenged.
It looks like he set about making a slam piece for notoriety rather than for truth.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Mar 28, 2019 19:06:23 GMT -5
I do think that the director strongly believes the accusers.
But by going to Sundance with it, I also think he did want some fame.
Let's see where it goes from here.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 28, 2019 23:42:29 GMT -5
This is also under public record. Michael, while under the effects of Propofol(spelling?) was recorded by Dr. Conrad Murray. Anyone who is slowly being placed under some form of sedative it's confirmed that their true thoughts emerge. Reason I know this is because when I went to have my wisdom teeth removed, while I was under the dentist and my parents said that during the procedure I confessed to watch porn with a friend during a sleepover(never told my parents beforehand). No one would've knew about that detail let alone the dentist who had no reason to lie obviously. Under the sedative Michael mentioned about building a children's hospital for the sick and less fortunate. Under no circumstances did he confess to molesting children while under a sedative. That would've been the easiest and perfect opportunity to get a confession out of him. When I went under sedative I grabbed my phone when the nurse left the room for a second and texted my friend that a kangaroo stole my shoes. I am glad he understood that what you say while drugged out of your mind isn't anything that should be taken as gospel. That's also why "truth serums" aren't used in court or even for hostile interrogations. I do have a brain, you know. Not agreeing with you and your sources - that, in my opinion, seem a little dubious and convenient for perpetuating confirmation bias - doesn't equate to people being lazy and stupid. Since we're talking sources, here, do you know what really sticks with me? The DA for the Jordan Chandler case stating that Jordan knew specific body markings in specific private places on Michael's body that no one would know by accident. That's not coming from no one connected to the case out of nowhere. It's completely dismissive to hand wave anyone who sees something differently than you as willfully ignorant and blind. It doesn't help you state your case, either. You do realize Jordan's description didn't match right? You have your opinion and I have mine. Obviously your mind is made up and that's okay too. I choose to educate myself on facts and not on salacious clickbait tabloid material. We'll agree to disagree. The description didn't match according to Jacksons lawyers. It did match according to prosecutors and cops. So were back to either you believe the people he was paying or the people who may be in on some conspiracy for fame, profit or whatever the going theory is this time. Here's some evidence that isn't disputed. He slept with boys. Is that ok? He had a naked picture of one of the boys. Is that ok? He still did this AFTER he was told by the world at large this was inappropriate. Is that ok? He did all this after he had to pay off one family and a hoard of lawyers and publicists to rehab is image. Is that still ok? 1) His bedroom was two stories and it was proven that there were other adults and girls in the same vicinity too. 2) He didn't have a naked picture of a boy. He had a book that is actually considered art with an inscription written by him. The book showed naked children not performing any kind of sexual act but being carefree and remaining innocent. 3) He didn't pay off anyone. His insurance company did. He originally wanted to fight the charges in 1993 and was advised by his insurance companies, his lawyers, and many other of his friends that it would be in his best interest both financially and health wise to settle. A pedophile isn't going to allow anyone to photograph his naked body to identify certain parts of his skin, a pedophile isn't going to admit on national television while also under charges that he sleeps his children, and a pedophile isn't going to allow a camera crew into his house on many occasions. 1. Sometimes there were other people there. Sometimes not. Sometimes he slept with them in hotels. He'd admitted this himself. 2. He did have a picture of a boy, name now released as Jonathan Spence. Also he didn't have a book. He had a virtually library of "artistic representation" of teenage sexuality intermixed with regular porn all in areas he kept children, not hidden in areas forbidden to them. 3. Ok he technically did not pay directly, just the company he was paying to keep his ass covered did. You do realize insurance companies don't like paying out and will take the least costly path? If you think it's all about money for the accusers why isn't for those in his circle? Michael didn't just let them photograph his naked body. He was forced under duress and protest. He whined about it for years. A pedophile may admit he sleeps with children if he knows he had a cult like following that believe him when he says it's ok when he does it. Warren Jeffs basically did and so have others who didn't think what they were doing is wrong. There are thousands of hours of footage of Jimmy Saville, indicted priests, cult leaders, and other known admitted caught pedophiles on youtube. Just because none of those tapes are of them committing acts doesn't even come close to exonerating them and nobody makes that argument. Here's something that isn't a clickbait youtube vid to counter a clickbait youtube vid. web.archive.org/web/20160621193645/http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf (quite long if you want a quick TLDR skip to page 35 for summary of the library he had available to his friends and/or grooming victims depending on your stance I guess) So again even if ONLY the surface stuff here is true, is it ok to have this stuff around other peoples children? Is it ok to sleep with children even after you've been told not to?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 29, 2019 1:47:02 GMT -5
When one's 'research&facts' have also led one to conclude that Jackson plausibly faked his own death, then people aren't gonna take those research&facts that seriously. Posting YouTube videos just as biased as one is claiming others are being with thumbnails and headlines like 'Debunking Neverland' etc don't hold much water as sources.
Again, no one is saying this one doc is the be all and end all source. These dudes might be lying. That's perfectly true. Jackson might not have abused any kids, also perfectly true.
But one side is saying---"he might not have been a .monster, I hope he wasn't, but there certainly is a compelling argument&and I don't want to dismiss possible victims because Jackson was inappropriate with kids."
Other side is goin: "They're definitely lying and he was totally innocent because of facts and research regardless of how biased those sources might be. Also there's likely a conspiracy to besmirch a dead guy who has had these allegations against him for nearly 30 years to somehow take focus off another guy who is currently facing charges because somehow that makes sense."
It's perfectly cool to be like, 'in my opinion based on what I've read I believe he's innocent' without the whole 'I have facts and research' thing especially when most of that research is dubious
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 29, 2019 6:05:03 GMT -5
Hell, I'll concoct one right now.
Bob Iger fired James Gunn off Guardians because of decades old pedo jokes he's long since apologized for, but he didn't anticipate the backlash from fans, the actors etc which could hurt Disney and the MCU.
So he came up with both a fake boycott for Captain Marvel, AND helped bankroll the Neverland doc to slander Michael Jackson both designed to take the focus off of the Gunn firing. The Jackson thing especially helps cuz he can point to that and say: "Gunn made jokes, but he was never accused of anything. Michael was, and people love Michael.'
They also closed Captain EO at Epcot years before for the same reasons.
Now that some people are talkin bout Jackson, Iger gets to rehire Gunn no harm no foul. He even let Gunn direct Suicide Squad as a smoke screen.
Now that's nuts&bullshit I JUST made up. But it's still more likely than the Weinstein thing.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 29, 2019 6:34:50 GMT -5
Finally a word from the man himself. LANGUAGE WARNING!
|
|