Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 83

Thread: My views on Michael.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Washington, seattle area USA
    Posts
    901

    Favorite
    Album
    Bad
    Toomuch,

    Do we for sure even know who Blankets mother really was? He may indeed have a different vibe. Folks may think he is MJs real child but I am not a believer in that at all.

    I just wish the poor guy could either have said , I adopted these kids or say I do not want to talk about it. Mj talking out of both sides or his mouth about the way these kids came into the world, well look at what kind of legacy the kids have now.

    He may look ethnic, but to me he looks much more latin or south islander than black. That straight soft thin baby hair with no curl..Oh well in the end they are on the will. Yet it will never stop the questions until we are all dead.

    With MJs little black book with lists of men willing to give him vials of sperm, seems to point to something a bit different in his mind regarding how he was going about having kids.

    I guess it would be really hard to be clearly a white blue eyed child, insist you are black and that your whole family is black but how long do most go on like that? When do you break down and say, I want a DNA test, because something is wrong here. Most adopted kids, if they know they are adopted usually want to find out where the real family is. Even if they will never stop believing their adoptive family is their true family.

    I had thought the older one said something about blood being thicker than the water of the womb online? Not sure of the context but he was saying something with that.

    Care Bear Stare hehe
    Dani
    Last edited by Danileevan; 05-28-2017 at 09:28 AM.
    "Take my message to your brother and tell em twice"

    "Dancing the Dream"

  2. #32
    Hmm....Dani, as for these side-by-side comparison pictures of both Prince Michael Jackson and Arnold Klein as very young children:

    http://s16.postimg.org/nzyrkafmt/pri...arnieklein.jpg

    I’m sorry to disagree with you, again, but these images do absolutely nothing to convince me of even the slightest chance or possibility that any man other than Michael Jackson was Prince Michael’s father — as much as you and others want me to go along with that particular belief. I’m not fooled — not one bit — by what may appear to have been “similarities” between certain aspects of their looks as little boys; There are way too many obvious differences between them (aside from hair that was dyed platinum-blonde, that is actually brown), such as the shape of each child’s nose, for example. Why do you compare a picture of a child who was no more than a year old, if that (Arnold Klein, as a baby) with the one of Prince Michael, who was at least around four or five by the time it was taken? Shouldn’t you have posted pictures of them as they were at the same age, instead of at different ages? Older children’s physical aspects, traits, attributes, etc., become much more noticeable, as they grew up out of infancy and then move into the next stages of life. I’d probably might be more open towards saying that they looked very slightly similar — in the sense that, some completely unrelated people do favor each other, somewhat, even some who look just like each other — though still strong in my belief, that Prince Michael is the biological, mixed-race son of a Black man (Michael Jackson) and a White woman (Debbie Rowe). In regards to other subject matter, PLEASE read the following segment of some previous comments I made. These comments, I hope, will help everyone posting in this thread to better understand my viewpoint, and why I DO NOT think that Michael was “perfect,” and never have.

    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255
    Some people do, while others don’t who can control their own behavior and know full well what they’re doing and why. I think that labelling every instance of unacceptable behavior or lack of self-control as a physical “disease,” or blaming such behavior on a “chemical imbalance in the brain” — or, on some other physical, biological factor — is another way of justifying, and finding excuses for, that person’s behavior and not taking any degree of responsibility for/not being held accountable for it. We ALL make mistakes, bad judgments, poor decisions and not-so-good choices.

    We also have the tendency to blame the results and the aftermath of our poor choices and bad decisions on everyone, everything and every circumstance or situation that just “happens” to us, rather than openly admitting to our own role in what we choose to do (or not to do), that affects the outcome of not only our words and actions, but of others’ as well. True, some unfortunate situations and circumstances do happen to us, from time to time, through no fault of our own. But, having to deal with the negative results of our poor decision-making and allowing wrong desires to develop in us (and then, acting on them, instead of immediately putting such desires out of our minds as soon as the smallest inkling of something even potentially questionable comes up) is not normally considered as such. Only very recently, has this “blaming everyone and everything but ourselves, because we’re ‘victims’ ” attitude come about. No one wants to take any responsibility for, nor own up to, anything, especially when something has a negative outcome that was caused by a person acting on his/her desires of the heart, personal “needs,” wants, etc.

    It’s the type of society and world we live in, where it’s this “do whatever we feel like doing, without getting punished for it, while blaming everyone and everything” type of reasoning, to let ourselves off the hook, so to speak. That’s why I think Michael’s (non-physical) issues are a symptom of something much, much deeper than anything having had anything to do with his body or even his mental state. That’s why I never thought he was “perfect.” He allowed himself to give into, and he acted on — instead of fighting, resisting and putting out of his mind, not letting get into his heart — whatever negative thoughts and desires he had developed within him, that came out of legitimate treatment of physical pain. Do you understand what I’m saying?

    By the way....About this “Body Dysmorphic Disorder,” I don’t believe he had it, either. However, what I do believe, is that his having been seen in the public eye first as a “cute,” “adorable” child in the early Motown years — on top of people’s unrealistic expectations of how they first remembered him when he debuted with his brothers as The Jackson 5 — along with having been teased and bullied by his father and brothers about the size and shape of his nose (and, a really bad case of acne he had, as a teenager, which didn’t help matters any) helped contribute further to his painful shyness and the extreme self-consciousness about his physical appearance.

    I hope your questions have been answered, and look forward to continuing this discussion further.
    Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 05-26-2017 at 06:33 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Washington, seattle area USA
    Posts
    901

    Favorite
    Album
    Bad
    Well if you are so inclined place a picture of Michael at the same age or around there next to the other two pictures. Then take a poll on here.

    PG is correct that the older Prince gets the more he looks like Klein IMHO. So the idea that those baby pictures are too far apart in age is moot. Klein's hair was brown so it hardly even matters that MJ bleached a 3-4 year olds hair, which was extremely odd in itself and speaks to something even deeper that I will not get into. With brown hair Prince looks even more like Klein, but believe what you will.

    (In reality I could care less about these kids or their lives. I take very little interest in them, as they are not very interesting kids, pretty bland TBH. I am more into the Jackson brothers/sisters past talent and accomplishments because they at the very least have a leg to stand on).

    The fact remains is MJ lied when he never had to about a lot of issues including these so called children of his seed. Any and all people who cannot accept that he was not a perfect snowflake has some issues of their own, which is usually evidenced very clearly in the way they try to counter the evidence given to them.

    You are not fooled? I see no one attempting to fool you, this is a discussion board, not some camp of indoctrination(you may be thinking about other boards) that you are forced or fooled into accepting and believing.

    I think you may have fooled yourself, long ago sadly. No disrespect.

    You keeping refusing to answer my question over and over, so I see no point in continuing this thread with you. You go off on tangents, avoid, duck and dodge direct questions(that I and even others made simple and basic, so you would not miss them or skip over them) so this has become pointless. Thanks for trying though, C- for effort.

    Anyone else who would like to continue, I shall happily keep reading and commenting.

    Dani
    Last edited by Danileevan; 05-28-2017 at 09:30 AM.
    "Take my message to your brother and tell em twice"

    "Dancing the Dream"

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Danileevan For This Useful Post:

    Kae-Leah (05-27-2017)

  5. #34
    I would like to ask you something, here — any one of you, who have done nothing but have constantly mis-interpreted, taken out of context, completely misunderstood, made fun of my views* (*I’m referring to YOU, TooMuch.) and/or mis-represented them — “Since when, have I ever ‘ducked,’ ‘dodged’ or ignored any other poster’s questions, when you won’t reveal the ‘sources’ from where you get this negative, gossipy and sensationalistic so-called ‘information?’ ”

    All I’m saying, is that I don’t buy into these piece-of-garbage “sources.” I would much rather believe what Michael, himself, had to say in legitimate, on-the-air interviews with well-trained, responsible, thoroughly professional members of the media who truly CAN be trustworthy, and are not looking for some type of financial or monetary gain, nor to receive attention for themselves for having gotten “THE biggest story of them all” — as the means to an end — in deliberately exploiting and using Michael’s name in ways that would demean and belittle his reputation, IF not outright slandering it.



    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    I would like to ask you something, here — any one of you, who have done nothing but have constantly mis-interpreted, taken out of context, completely mis-understood, made fun of my views* (*I’m referring to YOU, TooMuch.) and/or mis-represented them — “Since when, have I ever ‘ducked,’ ‘dodged’ or ignored any other poster’s questions, when you won’t reveal the ‘sources’ from where you get this negative, gossipy and sensationalistic so-called ‘information?’ ”

    All I’m saying, is that I don’t buy into these piece-of-garbage “sources.” I would much rather believe what Michael, himself, had to say in legitimate, on-the-air interviews with well-trained, responsible, thoroughly professional members of the media who truly CAN be trustworthy, and are not looking for some type of financial or monetary gain, nor to receive attention for themselves for having gotten “THE biggest story of them all” — as the means to an end — in deliberately exploiting and using Michael’s name in ways that would demean and belittle his reputation, IF not outright slandering it.

    You somehow, very conveniently, choose to ignore anything that doesn’t fit your idea of Michael as this totally crazy, “weird” nut-case, drug-addict person who couldn’t even biologically father his own offspring (and, oddly enough, expecting that they all turn out looking like he once did when he was a child/young teenager — which is not only completely ridiculous, it makes absolutely NO kind of sense at all — lest they not be his biological children, since they don’t physically look like him, according to your reasoning and logic) — even though certain parts of his body were found to still have been “working”....shall we say, when it was examined at his autopsy. How can any of you even begin to explain, and to dispute, the coroner’s findings, since you so adamantly insist that Michael lived his private, personal life in any and every way BUT straight?

    How can you explain that he was found to have been “healthy,” for a 50-year-old man, and that he had no other drugs in his system other than what the “doctor” gave him, the night before he had passed? And, while we’re at it, let’s completely overlook — as if such a time could be easily forgotten — Michael’s upbringing (along with his brothers’ and sisters’), and the first 20 years, or so, of his life, long before the idea of “Thriller” (and, anything having to do with it’s concept) came into existence, let alone the phenomenal success of the album, the short film, and the controversies in his life that would soon follow afterwards.
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 06-05-2017 at 01:22 PM.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,171

    Favorite
    Album
    Dangerous
    Quote Originally Posted by toomuch View Post
    Wasn't Blankets mother from South America? That would explain why he looks more ethnic than his siblings. Either way there certainly is a different vibe to that boy than the others.

    Either that stare is the new Care Bear Stare or he is here to murder us all.
    Mexico which is Central America.
    "Because we do not know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens a certain number of times, and a very small number, really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, some afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can't even concieve of your life without it? Perhaps four or five times more. Perhaps not even that. How many times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless." - Brandon Lee

  7. #36
    Actually, PG, Mexico is part of North America....But, never mind. Still, this whole thread is interesting, though.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    I would like to ask you something, here — any one of you, who have done nothing but have constantly mis-interpreted, taken out of context, completely mis-understood, made fun of my views* (*I’m referring to YOU, TooMuch.) and/or mis-represented them — “Since when, have I ever ‘ducked,’ ‘dodged’ or ignored any other poster’s questions, when you won’t reveal the ‘sources’ from where you get this negative, gossipy and sensationalistic so-called ‘information?’ ”

    All I’m saying, is that I don’t buy into these piece-of-garbage “sources.” I would much rather believe what Michael, himself, had to say in legitimate, on-the-air interviews with well-trained, responsible, thoroughly professional members of the media who truly CAN be trustworthy, and are not looking for some type of financial or monetary gain, nor to receive attention for themselves for having gotten “THE biggest story of them all” — as the means to an end — in deliberately exploiting and using Michael’s name in ways that would demean and belittle his reputation, IF not outright slandering it.
    The problem with this is that this leads into the thinking of believing every word MJ ever said.

    Celebrities can lie to protect their reputation. Thus, believing what they always say is futile. I'm talking in general here, not about MJ.

    Also

    on-the-air interviews with well-trained, responsible, thoroughly professional members of the media who truly CAN be trustworthy, and are not looking for some type of financial or monetary gain, nor to receive attention for themselves for having gotten “THE biggest story of them all”
    So, does Martin Bashir fall into this category?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Batman Bin Suparman For This Useful Post:

    Danileevan (05-28-2017)

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman Bin Suparman View Post
    The problem with this is that this leads into the thinking of believing every word MJ ever said.

    Celebrities can lie to protect their reputation. Thus, believing what they always say is futile. I'm talking in general here, not about MJ.

    Also



    So, does Martin Bashir fall into this category?
    So, Batman Bin Suparman, whose “word” would you trust? You are saying, then, that you, personally, would trust the “word” of an unproven, questionable, untrustworthy and rumor-spreading “journalist” who considers him-/herself one of THE most reliable “sources,” an “expert” when it comes to any- and everything having to do with Michael Jackson — while, at the same time, had only known what he/she had known about him/of him like most of the rest of us have, through some form of the media or another, never even having actually seen him in person, much less met him — rather than to believe a word that he had said, himself, out of his own mouth, as well as the words from the mouths of those who not only personally met him, but who had lived with him, who knew him best and loved him (such as, family members and/or close friends NOT seeking fame/notoriety, financial, monetary gain or profit from their connection to/association with him). Is that the case, here?

    As for Martin Bashir, he is far from being honest, reliable or trustworthy; I think he is downright despicable, in what he did. He set Michael up for (and, had some role in) his being falsely accused a second time, and made it seem like there was something seriously “wrong” with him — in the “criminal-behavior” sense — otherwise, no “Part 2” rebuttal T.V. programs would have been made, in the first place, to refute the heavily-edited segments of what became “L.W.M.J.” that were aired.

    Martin Bashir had stayed with Michael for almost a year, so why couldn’t other more favorable, positive footage from that length of time, during his stay at “Neverland,” have been used for “L.W.M.J.” at all? No trustworthy, reliable journalist ever stoops so low, sets people up to give interviews under false pretenses (like in Martin Bashir’s case with Michael) or does anything that even appears to be the slightest iota of anything unethical.
    Last edited by DDFF22552255; 06-05-2017 at 01:30 PM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by DDFF22552255 View Post
    So, Batman Bin Superman, whose “word” would you trust? You are saying, then, that you, personally, would trust the “word” of an unproven, questionable, untrustworthy and rumor-spreading “journalist” who considers him-/herself one of THE most reliable “sources,” an “expert” when it comes to any- and everything having to do with Michael Jackson — while, at the same time, had only known what he/she had known about him/of him like most of the rest of us have, through some form of the media or another, never even having actually seen him in person, much less met him — rather than to believe a word that he had said, himself, out of his own mouth, as well as the words from the mouths of those who not only personally met him, but who had lived with him, who knew him best and loved him (such as, family members and/or close friends NOT seeking fame/notoriety, financial, monetary gain or profit from their connection to/association with him). Is that the case, here?

    As for Martin Bashir, he is far from being honest, reliable or trustworthy; I think he is downright despicable, in what he did. He set Michael up for (and, had some role in) his being falsely accused a second time, and made it seem like there was something seriously “wrong” with him — in the “criminal-behavior” sense — otherwise, no “Part 2” rebuttal T.V. programs would have been made, in the first place, to refute the heavily-edited segments of what became “L.W.M.J.” that were aired.

    Martin Bashir had stayed with Michael for almost a year, so why couldn’t other more favorable, positive footage from that length of time, during his stay at “Neverland,” have been used for “L.W.M.J.” at all? No trustworthy, reliable journalist ever stoops so low, sets people up to give interviews under false pretenses (like in Martin Bashir’s case with Michael) or does anything that even appears to be the slightest iota of anything unethical.
    I never said that about who's word to trust. I am saying that believing everything MJ ever said is also the wrong thing to do. I don't trust the media one bit.

    You see, you go into more dodgy territory with the whole 'believing people who met him'. There are employees who worked for him and claim to of witnessed molestation of children. You won't believe that, but they fall into the category of having met him and been around him a lot. Bob Jones knew him for a long, long time, but should we believe what he has to say?

    Another thing is, you don't necessarily have to of met somebody to know about them. Lot's of biographies wouldn't exist otherwise.

    I'm saying that MJ didn't tell the truth all the time on certain matters. Some things he said made no sense whatsoever. His word shouldn't be believed on everything.

    Bashir is a coward, but let's not act like in that documentary MJ didn't set himself up. Proclaiming, AGAIN, it was normal to sleep in bed with boys had nothing to do with Bashir. Research into Bashir's past had not seemingly been done, and MJ did some ridiculous things in that documentary that Bashir didn't even need to spin.
    Last edited by Batman Bin Suparman; 05-28-2017 at 11:50 AM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Batman Bin Suparman For This Useful Post:

    Danileevan (05-28-2017)

  13. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Washington, seattle area USA
    Posts
    901

    Favorite
    Album
    Bad
    Batman,
    Good comment. If MJ would have been more aware (sober?) during that doc and did not say and do so many bizarre things, Bashir would have had nothing to broadcast but that MJ is just a regular cat. Instead they BOTH came off as disturbed.

    MJ came off as OTT, dramatic, tense, on/almost over the edge, with very odd disturbing behavior and I will say odd speaking and jerky movements, that looked like he was on a mix of uppers in one segment and downers in another.

    Bashir was sitting there poking him on his fathers abuse when MJ clearly was reaching some mental breaking point. I do understand why Bashir did that. Oprah and Walters did that with superstars all the time. The "crying moment" is the point of half the interviews these folks do.

    IMHO Bashir is not all that bad..MJ and handlers should have known not to have MJ shown to the world like that and if MJ wanted it so bad he dug his own grave..Bashir was doing what journalists do, dig for information. And boy did he get it. Yep Batman, he had no need to spin a whole bunch of it.

    Agreed on Bob Jones, although I do not believe everything he said, I do buy some of it, he did work for MJ for 30 years and was dropped with no benefits, hell just like Bill Bray.

    In the end plenty of people met and worked very close with MJ for long periods of time. Just becasue some say he was always on the up and up, does not mean that those who also worked for him closely that tell another story are all lying..It is all probably a mix of 2 or 10 things.
    Dani

    --- Merged Posts ---

    DDF,

    I have to wonder at your post if you think anyone was honest enough to interview Michael ever? Did you think Ed Bradly did a good job, was honest and fair? I can tell you in that 60 min interview MJ really made some mistakes that were much worse than the Bashir doc.

    1. Saying his shoulder was dislocated (Lie)
    2.Again, saying it is A OK to sleep with other peoples kids. Odd that his people did not coach him to back down on that front but again a huge mistake
    3. MJ appeard very hazed and drugged in that one (he could barley keep his eyes open)

    You have Walters interviewing him years before, how was that IYHO?

    How about Sawyer? She hardly even put him on the hot seat so maybe you liked that one?

    What about Rivera? I am pretty sure you like him of course since he always defended MJ was never really critical, like a good journalist should be eh?

    Was Oprah good to MJ? Was she honest and good peoples?

    Maybe that Aussie guy, whats his name Meldrum?..He is about the only one I can even think of that never asked one hard question. Maybe you would choose him as a fav?

    Well is there anyone you would say was trustworthy and "was not in it for the money" which is never going to happen becasue the whole thing is a biz, not a charity case.
    Last edited by Danileevan; 05-28-2017 at 12:16 PM.
    "Take my message to your brother and tell em twice"

    "Dancing the Dream"

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Danileevan For This Useful Post:

    Batman Bin Suparman (05-28-2017),Kae-Leah (05-28-2017),SmoothGangsta (05-28-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •