Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Hoax Investigation => General Hoax Investigation => Other Odd Things => Topic started by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 02:24:11 PM

Title: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 02:24:11 PM
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Kirsche on December 15, 2009, 02:27:18 PM
He has totally different Eyebrows and his faces...hm

was that a scene where they've put a playback over it?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 02:32:25 PM
I'm not sure which scene was that..but I'm sure he's not even close to being Michael.. :D
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Miss.Peppers on December 15, 2009, 02:38:42 PM
In an interview with TMZ, Dr Klein said that was his jacket that MJ was wearing that day with the orange trousers
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: larab on December 15, 2009, 02:41:42 PM
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 15, 2009, 02:43:07 PM
It's not him in the trailer at this move, but in Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', Jam, They Don't Really Care About Us, and Human Nature clips in this clothes is MJ.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: llebreknit on December 15, 2009, 02:48:11 PM
I am sure it is real MJ at TII all time.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: AgentBJ on December 15, 2009, 02:50:24 PM
I don't believe Dr.Klein.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: knowhesalive on December 15, 2009, 02:51:00 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

 

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

This is NOT Michael... Look at the eyebrows, nose, mouth and face...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Lou on December 15, 2009, 02:52:13 PM
Yes, he doesn't look like Michael. Maybe he's that Christopher guy mentioned on the following thread:
http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1391&p=21245#p21245
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: larab on December 15, 2009, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: "AgentBJ"
I don't believe Dr.Klein.

you don't have to. Michael was in his office almost daily for weeks.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: CoffeBean on December 15, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
:o  :o  :o
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: LucyLocket on December 15, 2009, 03:09:11 PM
It doesn't look like MJ to me either.  Keep in mind that I'm just playing the devil's advocate right now... what if it really is MJ after having "work" done that we are not aware of.  Silly, I know, but I have been wondering about that sort of thing.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Grazzia on December 15, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
is not mike!!!!
OMG! :shock:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: topsecretgirl on December 15, 2009, 03:14:59 PM
I think it's not Mike! This person looks very younger.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 03:17:19 PM
I've seen the movie a few times too and I believe doubles were used. My husband who isn't even an MJ fan but grew up with him and the Jackson 5 picked out the times he thought weren't Michael either (this was without my prompting or even mentioning I believe there were doubles). His exact words were "Is that Michael? cause he dances diferently...."

I think doubles were used, mainly based on some of their appearances BUT more so their movements. If you have grown up with Michael many would notice that his dance moves were very sharp and distinct. His movements flowed but always with an edge of sharpness to them. At other times (and this was the times I think doubles were used) they were more flimsy and floppy. They weren't as controlled. There bodies didn't move the way Michaels did.  If you ever see the movie again, check for this.

Michaels presence, whether singing and dancing on the stage is very unique and distinct to him alone. That wasn't the case in all the people on stage presented as Michael during the TII. I know others believe they were all Michael and hey I respect that opinion. I'm just sharing my point of view here like you.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: SPAKKLE29FUL on December 15, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
:shock: i do not think it is him either he does not look quite right,any way why would mj wanna wear dr arnies clothes :?: he is not exactly a fashion icon and he is quite fat is that why mj looked so thin at times ,not being rude really
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: lucrecia on December 15, 2009, 03:25:34 PM
Ok, but if this one is not MJ, which is the intention on use doubles. I do not understand, I never dealt, what are the gains for the hoax death theory with this conclusion.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 03:34:19 PM
Even tho I don't believe Michael in the double/twin/whatever theory that has been going on since his "death, it's not him in the photo...

BTW, did you guys notice those pointy ears?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 03:40:17 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Even tho I don't believe Michael in the double/twin/whatever theory that has been going on since his "death, it's not him in the photo...

BTW, did you guys notice those pointy ears?

I don't believe the twin theory either.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: kdkennedy74 on December 15, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
That is the guy that I was talking about yesterday on the Doubles post.  The performance of Black & White.  When Michael is in the black jacket and singing it is definitely him BUT when they show him in the white shirt and black pants something looks funny.  This is the same guy that looks funny to me in that segment!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: "lucrecia"
Ok, but if this one is not MJ, which is the intention on use doubles. I do not understand, I never dealt, what are the gains for the hoax death theory with this conclusion.

Everyone has a difference of opinions when it comes to the gains of the death hoax theory. Some believe it was for the making of a 'never done before movie', others spiritual enlightenment, saving the planet, trying to get out of debt, unable to fulfil the concert. There is not  a black and white answer that any of us can give you, just our opinion and speculation. I personally believe Michael hoaxed his death for serious reason. Always have. However I respect the fact others think differently because I don't have the answer for that so who am to say I am right and they are wrong. I'm just going with what I believe.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Freeze Frame on December 15, 2009, 03:56:12 PM
Not trying to put words in Lucrecia's mouth but I understood her question to be how does using doubles at some points in TII contribute to the hoax theory?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 03:59:00 PM
100 % NOT MICHAEL, Maybe a stand in double or as i mentioned in the other thread...

Michael also used a double on stage for the werewolf part of the Thriller song. He'd be back stage stage changing during that time. Usually on stage, when you saw Michael run off stage and the pyrotechnics suddenly come on with Michael standing there again, that was usually a double. Mike would be backstage getting oxgen and changing.

He used them in real life to as decoys to fool fans after concerts and when he needed to leave hotels etc...

For This Is It, Michael was going to do a lot of illusion and had several doubles lined up.

It's really not uncommon.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: "Freeze Frame"
Not trying to put words in Lucrecia's mouth but I understood her question to be how does using doubles at some points in TII contribute to the hoax theory?

Oh, ok. Sorry :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: O-drey-O on December 15, 2009, 04:12:54 PM
Quote
How does using doubles at some points in TII contribute to the hoax theory?

I don't know either... I don't see what would be the point of this . I believed there were no doubles but I do agree that it's not Michael in those pictures :shock: Maybe it's because of the quality of the pic? I don't know. As I'm seeing the pic, it's not him, what strikes me the most is the mouth...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Alem (Thetruth) on December 15, 2009, 04:13:28 PM
Too bad quality for me to distinguish, til then he is Michael.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJsAngelEyes1987 on December 15, 2009, 04:15:46 PM
From the pic that I saw, I personally don't think that was Mike @ all. The double is way different for sure.
That's just my opinion though.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
I've seen the movie a few times too and I believe doubles were used. My husband who isn't even an MJ fan but grew up with him and the Jackson 5 picked out the times he thought weren't Michael either (this was without my prompting or even mentioning I believe there were doubles). His exact words were "Is that Michael? cause he dances diferently...."

I think doubles were used, mainly based on some of their appearances BUT more so their movements. If you have grown up with Michael many would notice that his dance moves were very sharp and distinct. His movements flowed but always with an edge of sharpness to them. At other times (and this was the times I think doubles were used) they were more flimsy and floppy. They weren't as controlled. There bodies didn't move the way Michaels did.  If you ever see the movie again, check for this.

Michaels presence, whether singing and dancing on the stage is very unique and distinct to him alone. That wasn't the case in all the people on stage presented as Michael during the TII. I know others believe they were all Michael and hey I respect that opinion. I'm just sharing my point of view here like you.

Thankyou you took the words out of my mouth... For 30 yrs i have watched this man and i know some of the "MJS" in TII were not him... And i dont want to sound like a "know it all" but for me to see which ones are not him was  very easy even when they switched up with quick editing between the fake and real Michael...Actually the first time i watched TII i was really angry and couldnt enjoy it because the first 15 minutes were crawling with doubles in an out of shots...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJFOREVER on December 15, 2009, 04:20:53 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.


You cant change a face in 3 weeks and let your patient jumping and dancing around just a few days after a surgery ;)

BTW is it the light or is his jaw smaller? and well let me gi with the rest(eyebrows etc)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: "lucrecia"
Ok, but if this one is not MJ, which is the intention on use doubles. I do not understand, I never dealt, what are the gains for the hoax death theory with this conclusion.

I have no idea, but since doubles are such a popular topic, I thought it's ok to post it, because we don't know what's related to the hoax and what's not, right?  :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: "MJFOREVER"
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.


You cant change a face in 3 weeks and let your patient jumping and dancing around just a few days after a surgery ;)

BTW is it the light or is his jaw smaller? and well let me gi with the rest(eyebrows etc)

His whole face looks kind of...different, LMAO  :D Seriously, the cheek bones, mouth, eye brows, expression, nose..it's not him..
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.

That picture is obviously not MJ or a recently reconstructed MJ its just not him and its obvious...Sorry but it really is obviously NOT him....
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 04:31:25 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
I've seen the movie a few times too and I believe doubles were used. My husband who isn't even an MJ fan but grew up with him and the Jackson 5 picked out the times he thought weren't Michael either (this was without my prompting or even mentioning I believe there were doubles). His exact words were "Is that Michael? cause he dances diferently...."

I think doubles were used, mainly based on some of their appearances BUT more so their movements. If you have grown up with Michael many would notice that his dance moves were very sharp and distinct. His movements flowed but always with an edge of sharpness to them. At other times (and this was the times I think doubles were used) they were more flimsy and floppy. They weren't as controlled. There bodies didn't move the way Michaels did.  If you ever see the movie again, check for this.

Michaels presence, whether singing and dancing on the stage is very unique and distinct to him alone. That wasn't the case in all the people on stage presented as Michael during the TII. I know others believe they were all Michael and hey I respect that opinion. I'm just sharing my point of view here like you.

Thankyou you took the words out of my mouth... For 30 yrs i have watched this man and i know some of the "MJS" in TII were not him... And i dont want to sound like a "know it all" but for me to see which ones are not him was  very easy even when they switched up with quick editing between the fake and real Michael...Actually the first time i watched TII i was really angry and couldnt enjoy it because the first 15 minutes were crawling with doubles in an out of shots...

Yes I know what you mean with all the splicing and editing going on at the beginning. When that was happening the first thing that crossed my mind was "what's going on here?".  That made me pay even more attention to detail. Even with all that splicing and quick changes I noticed what I believed were doubles.  I've followed MJ for 20 years + and just from my observations I don't believe they were all him.  Michael's sharpness and distinction in his movements are unique. That sharpness was not present in the movement at times (the non-MJ ones)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 04:40:27 PM
Well i have been saying since i saw the trailers b4 the movie came out and b4 Joe said there were doubles that i thought some of the trailers looked a little "Off"... This picture here is just massive proof , i mean its obviously not MJ and still some people choose to argue that it is!! I feel like screaming but hey at least if we were in a room with those people and a load of fake MJS and one real one we would run to the real one without hesitation!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 15, 2009, 04:40:42 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Quote from: "MJFOREVER"
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.


You cant change a face in 3 weeks and let your patient jumping and dancing around just a few days after a surgery ;)

BTW is it the light or is his jaw smaller? and well let me gi with the rest(eyebrows etc)

His whole face looks kind of...different, LMAO  :D Seriously, the cheek bones, mouth, eye brows, expression, nose..it's not him..

Agree. Mild plastic surgery to the face has downtime for healing, so facial reconstruction would of taken weeks to heal. If he had facial reconstruction (even just the nose) it would of taken more than just the spasmodic use of a facial mask to hide this. There would of been bruising and swelling and not to mention scarring during the healing process. There is enough photos from 02 announcement until the supposed time of Michaels death to prove that this didn't take place.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Harleyblonde on December 15, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
I've seen the movie a few times too and I believe doubles were used. My husband who isn't even an MJ fan but grew up with him and the Jackson 5 picked out the times he thought weren't Michael either (this was without my prompting or even mentioning I believe there were doubles). His exact words were "Is that Michael? cause he dances diferently...."

I think doubles were used, mainly based on some of their appearances BUT more so their movements. If you have grown up with Michael many would notice that his dance moves were very sharp and distinct. His movements flowed but always with an edge of sharpness to them. At other times (and this was the times I think doubles were used) they were more flimsy and floppy. They weren't as controlled. There bodies didn't move the way Michaels did.  If you ever see the movie again, check for this.

Michaels presence, whether singing and dancing on the stage is very unique and distinct to him alone. That wasn't the case in all the people on stage presented as Michael during the TII. I know others believe they were all Michael and hey I respect that opinion. I'm just sharing my point of view here like you.

Thankyou you took the words out of my mouth... For 30 yrs i have watched this man and i know some of the "MJS" in TII were not him... And i dont want to sound like a "know it all" but for me to see which ones are not him was  very easy even when they switched up with quick editing between the fake and real Michael...Actually the first time i watched TII i was really angry and couldnt enjoy it because the first 15 minutes were crawling with doubles in an out of shots...
I agree with the above. The first time I saw the film I was quite disappointed with some of the dancing and then I realized it was not really energetic dancing so his age would not come into it and he just did not move like he always has, he did not have the edge, the fluidity that Michael had and it is something you never lose, like riding a bike-you never forget. He had his own graceful but sexy fluid way of moving and this "Michael" made me cringe. At first I actually felt sorry for him and thought he had lost the ability to always "shine" (he did always shine-every song, every move) and then it dawned on me it was not actually him. Without even studying his face we can establish it wasn't all Michael in the film. Can't wait for the DVD-we can study and pause etc.
What does this mean though? Why have they got standins? Why was Michael not able to do it all? Was he elsewhere? Was he tired or ill? Was he arranging all for the hoax? Was he dependant on drugs?  Was he getting his face altered for the hoax and had only filmed so much and had to get the lookalike to do the rest? Is it because someone terminally ill did actually die in his place and was not far from the end and Michael had to move fast? We can know it isn't all him in the movie but we need a reason why. Any ideas guys?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Invincible7 on December 15, 2009, 04:48:03 PM
This is DEFINITELY MIKE and no one else :D
Guys, come-on, are you all serious or just kiddin`, huh?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 04:52:19 PM
Harleyblonde  i have been wondering the same thing  but unfortunatley these threads about doubles always end up in a" Its is him ""No its not" fight and we never discuss the why!!!!!!!

I think the terminally ill guy who was dying in place of MJ is a good theory i think he died a little too soon and unexpected...

Or MJ really did die and they needed the stand in to fill the gaps of the footage they had.... (I HATE THIS IDEA)

Something worth noting here is that NONE of the stand ins appear in TII booklet (Or orange pants etc) its all MJ with the Red shirt on which is 100 % him.. I think thats a clue right there that they used doubles so i think they want us to know... Just cant figure out why!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 15, 2009, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: "Invincible7"
This is DEFINITELY MIKE and no one else :D
Guys, come-on, are you all serious or just kiddin`, huh?

We're serious. Many of us don't believe in the twin/double theory (me neither), but I have to admit that is not him in the picture.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: awesome1 on December 15, 2009, 05:05:28 PM
now im going to throw in the AppleheadJoe YouTube page into this slightly.  if like me, perople belive this was mike, which really is hard to decided wether it is or not... but i was reading the goodbye message again for it and came across a few things in it

"Body doubles have been used.
But were they used for me?"

and...

"Some rehearsals date back, quite far."

now if this was mike and he was saying this...... how far back could the rehersals could have been???..... could they have been before April???, which really is what clicked when i looked at that pic of MJ in the orange trousers....like i mean in the movie its is MJ through and through, and the dancing.. he was 50 years of age, his body was ageing and i think he ws only doing what his body would allow him to do, and it was only rehersal, who goes all out in a rehersal?

but remember the stories that came about before the month of june... that MJ wasnt showing up for rehersals as he was not eating and was getting scared about returning to the world????? but im sure that they DID have a backup that they could use just for positioning purposes and some other stuff, just incase MJ couldnt make it, like just to keep things on track.

and this just hit me..... could this be the stunt double used in Smooth Criminal Mini  Video???
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 15, 2009, 05:11:56 PM
It could be the stunt double however usually a stand in and a stunt double would be considered seperate jobs.. ( You dont want the stand in to also get hurt doing a stunt)  Its possinle MJ is in the audience directing the stand in so he can see how it looks from the audience but not sure why the stand in would have needed to be in FULL make up and costume!! Plus this pic is from the Movie trailer........All i know is that its definitly not MJ in that picture....
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: O-drey-O on December 15, 2009, 05:24:58 PM
Well, if they did use doubles just to see how it looked on stage etc etc... why do they show them in the MOVIE ?? Plus telling us it's Michael??

As for the why ... I believe in the Appleheadhjoe account too... Maybe Michael had to hide before the end of rehearsals, and that doubles had to finish them, in order to have the movie done ? That's why Michael would have said
"Some rehearsals date back, quite far." and "Body doubles have been used.
But were they used for me?" (they were used for AEG to finish the movie and earn money?)

don't know, I'm all confused lol
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Nathalia on December 15, 2009, 05:43:09 PM
In my opinion I am convinced that this man is not Michael. They don't have the same facial structure at all.
But I have to agree with what was stated above, maybe AEG did hire doubles for the movie because Michael was not there for rehearsals everyday- they even stated that in the movie. So what if AEG did hire stand-ins while Michael was attending to other matters?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: lucrecia on December 15, 2009, 07:54:40 PM
Quote from: "Freeze Frame"
Not trying to put words in Lucrecia's mouth but I understood her question to be how does using doubles at some points in TII contribute to the hoax theory?

 Thanks for your help! My english is terrible.... :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: teensy on December 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
I haven't really thought why doubles were used. I just accepted them as apart of the hoax. Thinking about it brings up a lot of whys.

I don't think there were ever meant to be a concert. That This Is It was supposed to be a movie. A hoax is all about illusion. Maybe there is a message in the fact that he is mixed in with doubles. It's a clue.

I can't think right now. My mind is blow wide open. I am flooded with questions.  :?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: O-drey-O on December 15, 2009, 08:58:44 PM
We were told that Michael agreed to do the movie right? If it's true then, maybe it's  to show that a lot of people can be fooled ? To show us to not believe everything you hear or see?
But I would be tend to think that it was AEG or anyone but Michael, who decided to use doubles to make more money ...? no?
I don't know, I try to understand the point of this...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: zyla on December 15, 2009, 09:00:42 PM
That is not Michael...
Look at his chin. And the shape of it.
Honestly, when I was watching the movie I remember thinking this man and...
the one in the orange pants weren't Michael. My mom and I were whispering about it while they were on screen.
She thought that the one in TDRCAU was the real Mike.

But yeah. Definitely isn't him. I agree.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Zen on December 15, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
I don't believe this is Michael.  I too have been an MJ fan for 30 years and
think it odd that they purposely blurred certain shots..so we couldn't be sure.
As for the hoax, I am still confused..are we only allowed to talk about the hoax
or are we trying to get to the bottom of what happened and what is going on?
Because I don't think it's a big mystery that they would definitely not have a problem
using whatever technology available to complete this movie...our question is...WHERE
was Mike?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: miss j on December 15, 2009, 09:23:15 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

who is that???
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Chance on December 15, 2009, 09:29:22 PM
Do you think the eyebrows look similiar to this picture?

(http://www.almostmj.com/HOA/assn14811/images/gallery7968/hong%20kong.jpg)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Another_Part_of_Me on December 15, 2009, 09:44:58 PM
I have some pictures of myself where I look very, very different and when i would show them to my mother she tells me she would never think its me, lol so I say its real MJ :}

He was prolly just singing something thats why his mouth looks different, plus its lighting, angle plus bad quality of a picture.

K.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: mjboogie on December 15, 2009, 09:50:13 PM
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJJLives on December 15, 2009, 10:09:24 PM
Just a thought.......maybe they didn't have enough rehearsal footage with Michael, so they had to use doubles to finish the film.  Movies are shot out of sequence all the time and the film didn't come out until October, so, maybe they filmed more AFTER June 25th?  :?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nlb on December 15, 2009, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: "O-drey-O"
Well, if they did use doubles just to see how it looked on stage etc etc... why do they show them in the MOVIE ?? Plus telling us it's Michael??

As for the why ... I believe in the Appleheadhjoe account too... Maybe Michael had to hide before the end of rehearsals, and that doubles had to finish them, in order to have the movie done ?

I agree. I think he may have been in danger and had to hide. I've often wondered if maybe he was to go into hiding on June 25th, but something triggered an earlier date to put him into hiding, with the rest to be carried out on June 25th.

Anyway using a double until then would make it less suspicious and give time to finish up what needed to be done before June 25th.

[/color]
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: foreverking on December 15, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
I've seen the movie a few times too and I believe doubles were used. My husband who isn't even an MJ fan but grew up with him and the Jackson 5 picked out the times he thought weren't Michael either (this was without my prompting or even mentioning I believe there were doubles). His exact words were "Is that Michael? cause he dances diferently...."

I think doubles were used, mainly based on some of their appearances BUT more so their movements. If you have grown up with Michael many would notice that his dance moves were very sharp and distinct. His movements flowed but always with an edge of sharpness to them. At other times (and this was the times I think doubles were used) they were more flimsy and floppy. They weren't as controlled. There bodies didn't move the way Michaels did.  If you ever see the movie again, check for this.

Michaels presence, whether singing and dancing on the stage is very unique and distinct to him alone. That wasn't the case in all the people on stage presented as Michael during the TII. I know others believe they were all Michael and hey I respect that opinion. I'm just sharing my point of view here like you.

Thankyou you took the words out of my mouth... For 30 yrs i have watched this man and i know some of the "MJS" in TII were not him... And i dont want to sound like a "know it all" but for me to see which ones are not him was  very easy even when they switched up with quick editing between the fake and real Michael...Actually the first time i watched TII i was really angry and couldnt enjoy it because the first 15 minutes were crawling with doubles in an out of shots...

And my mouth too.  I grew up watching him from the age of 8 and I know him not just from his face, but from the way he moves, his aura on stage is one of a kind. It's what makes him so wonderful.  It's what made kids as young as 3 and 4 love him and adults in their 80's love him.
I watched TII with the sound turned off because I think the voice may be influencing people to think it's MJ, but watch without the sound and orange pants guy is not MJ.  He's a double. Why? Who knows. Remember this is Michael Jackson and you cannot try to understand the why, just know that if this is a double he had one heck of a reason for using him.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: miss j on December 15, 2009, 11:20:17 PM
Quote from: "mjboogie"
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!

yes, i watched it only one time, and that orange-pants guy looked so funny, he didn't seem to know the moves..
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Lorrie on December 15, 2009, 11:40:18 PM
Put me in the group of people who think This Is It is all Michael.

A few questions to ask yourself if you believe there were doubles in the movie are why would Kenny Ortega and Sony need to do that when they allegedly had so much footage available to work with? Are they lying about the amount of footage? Is it possible that Kenny wouldn't know when he was selecting footage with a fake Michael instead of a real Michael, and if he did know, why use it?

The last two possibilities seem especially unlikely to me. According to Kenny, one of the hardest parts of editing the movie was choosing the best material from the hours and hours of excellent footage that was filmed.

Of course, doubles are entirely possible. Joe even insinuated they were used. But the questions I mention make me wonder what would be the point of bothering.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wilds on December 15, 2009, 11:45:18 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

That is NOT Michael Jackson lol! When the trailer was released you could see the ears were different. Now why would someone's ears change shape from round to pointy? That's a dead giveaway there. In this photo, his nose is different and his lips are waaay different! For me this is just another confrimation that This is NOT IT.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Invincible7 on December 16, 2009, 01:26:05 AM
Quote from: "Chance"
Do you think the eyebrows look similiar to this picture?

(http://www.almostmj.com/HOA/assn14811/images/gallery7968/hong%20kong.jpg)

Who is that funny guy? :D
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: q0txciityl0ve on December 16, 2009, 01:30:42 AM
:shock:

damn, now i won't be able to look at the movie the same way...i had my hopes all up when "MJ" did the "spanking move" during Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. it made me excited. but nowwwwww, i'm mad.  :evil:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: becca26 on December 16, 2009, 01:48:58 AM
Like Ive been saying in a thread I started on sunday about Christoper being a double used in this is it, I think MJ used doubles for two reasons, to see if people would believe this is him in the movie, which some are of him, reason two just like he has in the past as someone stated earlier on this thread, when MJ needed to get away he'd hire an impersonator to leave in a limo as he left in his bentley, so while everyone is distracted watching this double on the movie also in the ambulance, MJ is already gone. MJ kept a pair of black pants on the whole time in the movie, one of the pant legs had a white mark on them, I think MJ did his shots in one day, abd the doubles filled in later. Just my opinion, also another person or persons missing from the involvement in the movie was an illusionist, Chris Angel? David Blaine??
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: onemorechance on December 16, 2009, 02:02:57 AM
Maybe they shot the scenes with the doubles AFTER Mike's death??? Because they couldn't do a movie from the existing footage so AEG had to hire them to finish at least the movie to gain some profit.
OR:
Using doubles in the movie could mean: they knew that the concerts were not going to happen.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: onemorechance on December 16, 2009, 02:07:52 AM
Quote from: "MJJLives"
Just a thought.......maybe they didn't have enough rehearsal footage with Michael, so they had to use doubles to finish the film.  Movies are shot out of sequence all the time and the film didn't come out until October, so, maybe they filmed more AFTER June 25th?  :?

Oh, sorry I didn't read your post before my posting. :oops:  That's exactly my opinion.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: TheLLMJ on December 16, 2009, 02:13:34 AM
:shock:
I always thought that it was MJ at the TII movie, but now I must admit, that this guy on that pictures really dont look like MJ.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:23:56 AM
Does anybody remember the statement from Navi regarding AEG approaching him to be in TII as a double? (He declined apparently, It does not look like Navi either) It was after Joe announced to the world there were doubles!!
I will keep searching for it..
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:26:10 AM
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz ... ouble.html (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/michael_jackson/564869/double.html)

Promotional posters for the Michael Jackson movie promise fans will see Jackson, 'Like you've never seen him before.' But the King of Pop's family says, in places, it's not even him.

M.J.'s family members are accusing 'This Is It' filmmakers of using body doubles. Patriarch, Joe, says those behind the concert film are fooling his late son's fans and he only needed to see twelve minutes of footage to decide, 'This movie features body doubles, no doubt about it.'

News of the World reports that a British Michael Jackson impersonator, Navi Parasram claims to have turned down an invite to appear. He claimed, 'They asked me to do long shots, visuals, placements.' Sony declined to comment.

Sister Latoya's business partner, Jeffre Phillips, also told News of the World, 'I see all these great movements in the trailers but I don't believe most of those shots were Michael. He wasn't well enough. I've seen clips where I even thought, 'That's not Michael's voice.''

Meanwhile, Latoya reportedly has 'no plans' to watch the documentary, which focuses on rehearsals for the 50 shows at the O2 Arena where Jackson was scheduled to perform before his sudden death in June. She is said to be devastated by the possibility that the last recorded performances of her brother are not genuine.

Joe Jackson anticipates that 'This Is It,' scheduled for release October 28, will come under fire. 'I think people will tear this movie apart,' he said.

Does anybody here plan on seeing this film?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 16, 2009, 03:41:05 AM
How about this guy?  Looks similar.His name is Michael Kiss. Credit goes to Katiek from MJHD

slideshow_1339282_025738_Thrill_The_World_CAR.JPG[/attachment]

attachment=0]slideshow_1339282_025738_Thrill_The_World_CAR.JPG[/attachment]

http://www.wireimage.com/searchresults. ... d=C&vwmd=i (http://www.wireimage.com/searchresults.aspx?s=michael%20kiss&cbi=2990&sfld=C&vwmd=i)[attachment=0][
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:42:24 AM
I think its this guy in the movie he looks like the posted picture.... his name is Michael Kiss.... Here is his Youtube page  http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelKiss1 (http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelKiss1)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:44:00 AM
Whoa Happy feet great minds think alike we posted at the same time about Michael Kiss :P
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 16, 2009, 03:44:23 AM
Hey Leah-Kim,

We must be browsing the same sites   :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:47:27 AM
Trying to find out where he is right now and where he was after June 25th... Wonder if he is on FB or twitter!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:48:42 AM
We can contact him !!!!!!!
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact)
And he was at TII premiere
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing ... evntI=3368 (http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====400434&evntI=3368)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 16, 2009, 03:51:26 AM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Trying to find out where he is right now and where he was after June 25th... Wonder if he is on FB or twitter!!!

There was a link on MJHD of his gallery but it was taking too long to load so I gave up. He looks really similar in my opinion.  I just know without doubt that wasn't all MJ in TII. I'll keep looking around. First time I have ever heard of this impersonator before. Heard of the others, but not this one.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 16, 2009, 03:52:40 AM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
We can contact him !!!!!!!
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact)
And he was at TII premiere
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing ... evntI=3368 (http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====400434&evntI=3368)

Oh good. Thanks! I
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:55:24 AM
Here is his MYSPACE and whats good about this is that he has alot of impersonators as friends...
http://www.myspace.com/mjtributeartiest (http://www.myspace.com/mjtributeartiest)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJhunny on December 16, 2009, 04:01:02 AM
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
We can contact him !!!!!!!
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact)
And he was at TII premiere
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing ... evntI=3368 (http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====400434&evntI=3368)

Oh good. Thanks! I


in the second link : the first picture:  archangel theme again??cant read what it says on top of the wings though        anyone??
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Happy Feet on December 16, 2009, 04:13:53 AM
Quote from: "MJhunny"
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
We can contact him !!!!!!!
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact)
And he was at TII premiere
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing ... evntI=3368 (http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====400434&evntI=3368)

Oh good. Thanks! I


in the second link : the first picture:  archangel theme again??cant read what it says on top of the wings though        anyone??

I can't seem to work out what it says either. That myspace link has a few of Michaels impersonators on there. A few good ones, but sheesh poor Michael some looked a bit err...creepy  :)  :) . I wouldn't know if Michael would be flattered or offended  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: .... Michael was a nice guy, so I guess he'd be flattered, so I'll be offended for him  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Ninanina on December 16, 2009, 04:49:38 AM
Quote from: "MJhunny"
Quote from: "Happy Feet"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
We can contact him !!!!!!!
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge/contact)
And he was at TII premiere
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing ... evntI=3368 (http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====400434&evntI=3368)

Oh good. Thanks! I


in the second link : the first picture:  archangel theme again??cant read what it says on top of the wings though        anyone??

I think it just says
CINEMAS 8-14
RESTROOMS

He looks a lot like the one from the OP...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Ninanina on December 16, 2009, 05:02:14 AM
Michael Kiss TWITTER
http://twitter.com/michaelkiss (http://twitter.com/michaelkiss)

MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/michaelkiss1 (http://www.myspace.com/michaelkiss1)

I wonder, why his just recently promoted official website is down, and why he doesn't share pics with non-friends on MySpace. Strange for an artist - makes no sense.
Did SONY make him put it down?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: maryO on December 16, 2009, 05:05:16 AM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)


i see that e is wearing earrings??? i see some black ones
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 07:45:43 AM
According to this website he only was added or signed up yesterday!!!!!! 12/15/2009
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge)
For me this one looks just like the pic that the OP posted, The more i look at him the more i am certain we found our guy....
Now if we only knew WHY he was there!!!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 16, 2009, 08:06:44 AM
Quote from: "maryO"
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)


i see that e is wearing earrings??? i see some black ones

That's probably just a shadow..well, who knows...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Wildy on December 16, 2009, 08:35:43 AM
Does anyone know why Michael used a double in TII?
What was the purpose to do it during the rehearsals? Thanks  ;)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 08:37:08 AM
Quote from: "Wildy"
Does anyone know why Michael used double in TII? What was the purpose? Thanks  ;)

Open to theories we are still trying to figure that out...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: DontBelieveTheHype on December 16, 2009, 08:42:55 AM
That dosnt look like Mike. I remember the scene with the orange pants dude, he looks way too skinny and young. Every scene with sunglasses made me suspicious. And this guy appears to have pointy ears, much like that other paparazzi pic of 'MJ' wearing a mask.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 11:56:13 AM
Check out his TWITTER!!!!!!! :o
http://twitter.com/michaelkiss (http://twitter.com/michaelkiss)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Datroot on December 16, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.

Klein is a dermatologist - they don't reconstruct people's faces - they only deal with skin disorders
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: "Datroot"
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.

Klein is a dermatologist - they don't reconstruct people's faces - they only deal with skin disorders

Thankyou for saying that... Klein made out like he was putting him under the knife.. The only other thing Klein can do is Botox and Restylin injections and that is not reconstructive it is just simply injections... Minor cosmetic surgery .. To dramatically alter ones face he would have seen a plastic surgeon...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nlb on December 16, 2009, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: "becca26"
Like Ive been saying in a thread I started on sunday about Christoper being a double used in this is it, I think MJ used doubles for two reasons, to see if people would believe this is him in the movie, which some are of him, reason two just like he has in the past as someone stated earlier on this thread, when MJ needed to get away he'd hire an impersonator to leave in a limo as he left in his bentley, so while everyone is distracted watching this double on the movie also in the ambulance, MJ is already gone. MJ kept a pair of black pants on the whole time in the movie, one of the pant legs had a white mark on them, I think MJ did his shots in one day, and the doubles filled in later. Just my opinion, also another person or persons missing from the involvement in the movie was an illusionist, Chris Angel? David Blaine??

Great point about the pants. I too believe that he did his shots in one day. I'm also not convinced that there was actually as much footage to use as Kenny and AEG stated. I can't find the articles right now, but it was stated that Michael missed rehearsals quite a bit.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Kuki on December 16, 2009, 01:01:41 PM
This really confuses me.....  :shock:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: kdkennedy74 on December 16, 2009, 01:03:41 PM
I can't find the article right now but I remember reading one where Kenny said that they had hired doubles because they never knew when or if Michael would show up for rehearsals.  I have also read that Michael only showed up for rehearsals 16 times. I don't know if that is true or not but just something I heard.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: loveumj88 on December 16, 2009, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

Looks more like the impersonator Earnest Valentino to me.. :shock:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nlb on December 16, 2009, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: "kdkennedy74"
I can't find the article right now but I remember reading one where Kenny said that they had hired doubles because they never knew when or if Michael would show up for rehearsals.  I have also read that Michael only showed up for rehearsals 16 times. I don't know if that is true or not but just something I heard.

Here's one, it's quite long and rehashes a lot of things. It's not the most flattering article, it does talk about drug use, weight issues, all that was be reported on in the beginning. I don't know how true any of this is either, but only the ppl involved know the truth.   I'll do some quotes about the rehearsals.

At
Quote
the end of March, just three months before the first concert was scheduled to kick off, a crew of dozens of musicians and dancers and technicians began showing up for daily rehearsals at CenterStaging -- putting in long days, seven days a week. In the beginning, Jackson would show up only a few times a week, sitting with Ortega for several hours and going through his huge archive of material -- old photographs, videos, records. They were hoping to capture that essence, that special something that made him the King of Pop.

Quote
Although Jackson was playing a central role in shaping the comeback tour, taking the stage to prepare was another matter entirely. While the crew logged long hours at CenterStaging, Jackson preferred to work from home most days. Those around him were getting nervous.

Quote
Others began to press Jackson to rehearse more. "I had my concerns if he was ready, and I questioned him," says Ortega. "There were days when I was like, 'Are you going to show up? Are you really going to be here? You need to do this.' '' Citing the need for more set-up time in London, Ortega asked for the opening show to be pushed back five days, to July 13.

In early June, Dr Murray mediated a meeting at Michael's home between Jackson and Ortega, who felt the star needed to come to rehearsals more often. Jackson listened quietly to the tour director, but he didn't seem alarmed. "I know my schedule," he said calmly. "Just trust me."

But after that, Jackson started coming to rehearsals all day, every day. To those around him, he seemed focused and attentive to every detail. "I like to refer to Michael as a gamer," says DiLeo. "He's the quarterback. He's the star of the team, and in practice, quarterbacks are easygoing. But game day, he's turning it on."
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ind ... 67400.html (http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/celebrity-news-gossip/the-last-days-of-michael-jackson-1867400.html)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: kdkennedy74 on December 16, 2009, 01:44:29 PM
Thank you for posting that.  If Michael met with Kenny and Murray in early June and then suddenly started showing up for rehearsal "every day" and if what I heard is true that he only showed up 16 days total it would be interesting to know when this meeting took place and exactly how many days were between this meeting and the "death" to allow us to calculate how many times he had gone to rehearsal prior to this meeting.  

All in all, I really do not believe that Michael ever intended on doing these shows.  If you remember, it was noted that auditions did not begin until April and that is leaving very little time (IMO) to put together a show of this magnitude.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Kate_D on December 16, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Hi to everyone!
I'm new here and as i entered this forum and saw this pic (MJ in the red pants) I was like "Wow! It's not him!". I had never thought about doubles before - I hadn't believed they were used...but now...
I really don't know what to think now - i'm almoust confirmed that it wasn't MJ but there is one issue that stops me and doesn't let me to believe fully... His hands.
MJ's hands look like noone's. They are different. They are wonderful. I have always paid much attention to his hands on pics and on this pic ... there are his hands!
Does anybody see that there are HIS hands or am I wrong? Do my words have any sence or...?
I feel so confused with this photo...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 03:25:42 PM
Just spent an hour freeze framing trailers but its impossible Argh i cant wait for the dvd to come out!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: LiberianGirl on December 16, 2009, 04:29:16 PM
I've always told that there were doubles in TII! And they were more than one! I think Michael prefered to be behind the camera  ;)

And that guy is Michael Kiss. Here you can see him in this video too. And don't forget that we haven't seen all the impersonators yet :)

[youtube:3fkc6kzc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpfXYV8G3q0[/youtube:3fkc6kzc]

This is his picture. So you can compare.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/357f2i0.jpg)

(http://i48.tinypic.com/169g6l3.jpg)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 04:49:22 PM
Thats a good video, It is strange how MK has just cropped up this year, New Myspace, Twitter, BIO on impersonators page sign up Dec 15th...Weird.....
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Lorrie on December 16, 2009, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: "nlb"
Quote from: "kdkennedy74"
I can't find the article right now but I remember reading one where Kenny said that they had hired doubles because they never knew when or if Michael would show up for rehearsals.  I have also read that Michael only showed up for rehearsals 16 times.
Here's one, it's quite long and rehashes a lot of things. It's not the most flattering article, it does talk about drug use, weight issues, all that was be reported on in the beginning. I don't know how true any of this is either, but only the ppl involved know the truth.
There's a HUGE difference between hiring doubles for rehearsals and actually allowing those doubles to appear in a movie that's supposed to be the final cinematic swan song of a recently deceased, enormously popular and famous entertainer.

Just sayin'. Please, carry on...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: O-drey-O on December 16, 2009, 05:11:13 PM
Quote from: "Lorrie"
Quote from: "nlb"
Here's one, it's quite long and rehashes a lot of things. It's not the most flattering article, it does talk about drug use, weight issues, all that was be reported on in the beginning. I don't know how true any of this is either, but only the ppl involved know the truth.
There's a HUGE difference between hiring doubles for rehearsals and actually allowing those doubles to appear in a movie that's supposed to be the final cinematic swan song of a recently deceased, enormously popular and famous entertainer.

Just sayin'. Please, carry on...

Yes that's what I said too ... It's ok if they used doubles to check the lightnings etc... but if they showed them in the MOVIE too saying that it's Michael, then they would have legal problems. They are not allowed to do this.
But I'm a little confused because more it goes and more I believe in the doubles ...There are only pics of Michael in the black pants with the red shirt, without sunglasses on the This is It CD. Because that's the ONLY footage with the real Michael ??
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 16, 2009, 05:17:22 PM
Because it is Only Red shirt MJ in TII CD booklet..... I have always questioned that!!!
Seemed strange they would not include lots of different rehersal pics.. Smooth Crim is there too but that was filmed earlier at Culver....

The comparison of these 2 pics for me is Michael Kiss
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: becca26 on December 16, 2009, 08:34:22 PM
Quote from: "LiberianGirl"
I've always told that there were doubles in TII! And they were more than one! I think Michael prefered to be behind the camera  ;)

And that guy is Michael Kiss. Here you can see him in this video too. And don't forget that we haven't seen all the impersonators yet :)

[youtube:25a1w6gr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpfXYV8G3q0[/youtube:25a1w6gr]

This is his picture. So you can compare.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/357f2i0.jpg)

(http://i48.tinypic.com/169g6l3.jpg)

Wow great job!! They look like a match!! Even his ear, kinda like in the ambulance too!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Nakiska on December 16, 2009, 08:46:26 PM
^^^
WOW It seems to be a perfect match indeed 8-)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nlb on December 16, 2009, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: "O-drey-O"
Quote from: "Lorrie"
Quote from: "nlb"
Here's one, it's quite long and rehashes a lot of things. It's not the most flattering article, it does talk about drug use, weight issues, all that was be reported on in the beginning. I don't know how true any of this is either, but only the ppl involved know the truth.
There's a HUGE difference between hiring doubles for rehearsals and actually allowing those doubles to appear in a movie that's supposed to be the final cinematic swan song of a recently deceased, enormously popular and famous entertainer.

Just sayin'. Please, carry on...

Yes that's what I said too ... It's ok if they used doubles to check the lightnings etc... but if they showed them in the MOVIE too saying that it's Michael, then they would have legal problems. They are not allowed to do this.
But I'm a little confused because more it goes and more I believe in the doubles ...There are only pics of Michael in the black pants with the red shirt, without sunglasses on the This is It CD. Because that's the ONLY footage with the real Michael ??

I agree, that there is a HUGE difference between hiring doubles for rehearsals and actually using them in the movie. I have a few questions though.

1.) Wouldn't someone roughly the same height and weight as Michael work for the lighting issues, the placement, and the like? Why would it be necessary to hire someone who LOOKS like MJ to do this?

I'm probably reaching here, but since everything was hush-hush and all involved had to sign confidentiality agreements, maybe there was an agreement to use a double to pass off as MJ in the movie. Wasn't Navi or E'cas used in the video "Who Is It"?

IDK, just throwing some things out there.  :oops:  :?

Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: becca26 on December 16, 2009, 10:07:18 PM
I believe it was E cas in the who is it video  ;)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 17, 2009, 03:58:10 AM
Quote from: "becca26"
I believe it was E cas in the who is it video  ;)

Yes your right it was Ecass MJ personally picked him....
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nlb on December 17, 2009, 07:50:50 AM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Quote from: "becca26"
I believe it was E cas in the who is it video  ;)

Yes your right it was Ecass MJ personally picked him....

Thank you could remember which one it was.

One more thing, doubles are used everyday in movies, tv shows, videos. They are passed off as the person they are portraying. They are acknowledged in the credits.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Dangerous on December 17, 2009, 08:42:14 AM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Because it is Only Red shirt MJ in TII CD booklet..... I have always questioned that!!!
Seemed strange they would not include lots of different rehersal pics.. Smooth Crim is there too but that was filmed earlier at Culver....

The comparison of these 2 pics for me is Michael Kiss

That looks like a perfect match.

The only reason i can think for why they used doubles is because MJ wasn't well enough to perform, but that also means that This Is It was always supposed to be a movie, because it's not as though they could get away with using them at the O2.

Or when MJ died he hadn't showed up for many rehearsals but they still wanted to make ££ from his death so they filmed extra rehearsal footage with doubles to make a movie.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 17, 2009, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: "nlb"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Quote from: "becca26"
I believe it was E cas in the who is it video  ;)

Yes your right it was Ecass MJ personally picked him....

Thank you could remember which one it was.

One more thing, doubles are used everyday in movies, tv shows, videos. They are passed off as the person they are portraying. They are acknowledged in the credits.

I doubt the double will be in the credits if it was all Hush Hush.... Its very strange becasue this Michael  Kiss guy has just appeared from nowhere like we were meant to find him..
Ok heres why i say this
1. His Myspace is BRAND NEW
2. His Twitter is BRAND New
3. The impersonator website only listed him as joining on Dec 15th 2009!!!!!! Isnt that the same day this pic was posted???
4. He led "Thrill the world in LA
5. He was at the premiere of TII
Now surely if your proffesion is as an impersonator you would have been listed previously..
http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge (http://www.gigsalad.com/michael_kiss_northridge)

AND THEN THERE IS THIS VIDEO... IT WAS ONLY UPLOADED DEC 11TH  YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS VIDEO 2ND ONE DOWN.. WEAR HEADPHONES FOR BETTER SOUND...
http://www.metropolistv.nl/?cat=187&lang=en (http://www.metropolistv.nl/?cat=187&lang=en)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 17, 2009, 08:52:46 AM
SORRY VIDEO NUMBER 3 NOT 2
http://www.metropolistv.nl/?cat=187&lang=en (http://www.metropolistv.nl/?cat=187&lang=en)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 17, 2009, 09:09:06 AM
THEN THERE IS THIS VIDEO...
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/mic ... 1102728418 (http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/michael-jackson-look-alike-michael-kiss/1102728418)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: kdkennedy74 on December 17, 2009, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
THEN THERE IS THIS VIDEO...
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/mic ... 1102728418 (http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/michael-jackson-look-alike-michael-kiss/1102728418)

Video has been removed by the user  :x
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: SPAKKLE29FUL on December 17, 2009, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: "kdkennedy74"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
THEN THERE IS THIS VIDEO...
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/mic ... 1102728418 (http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/michael-jackson-look-alike-michael-kiss/1102728418)

Video has been removed by the user  :x
:o WHY HAS IT BEEN REMOVED
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Eva R on December 17, 2009, 11:19:05 AM
Still think in TII were all Michael. Well, we just have to wait till Michael says it himself if there were doubles ;)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJJ1982 on December 17, 2009, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: "Eva R"
Still think in TII were all Michael. Well, we just have to wait till Michael says it himself if there were doubles ;)

I agree...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MissG on December 17, 2009, 12:52:04 PM
I saw the video of Michael Kiss. That man worries me.
The guy try to talk and sound as Michael, is pretty sad.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 17, 2009, 02:15:29 PM
Quote from: "kdkennedy74"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
THEN THERE IS THIS VIDEO...
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/mic ... 1102728418 (http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/michael-jackson-look-alike-michael-kiss/1102728418)

Video has been removed by the user  :x


I only just watched it before i posted it!!!!!! How strange!!!!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: ILuvUMoreMJ on December 18, 2009, 02:04:48 AM
Quote from: "Eva R"
Still think in TII were all Michael. Well, we just have to wait till Michael says it himself if there were doubles ;)

LOL, me too. ;)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: DaTrootWillPrevail on December 18, 2009, 11:27:58 AM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)


i belive this is NOT Michael ..
for me it's different eyebrows, different mouth and different ear ..
of course different people
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 18, 2009, 03:47:17 PM
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.


Double for one movement which was in the film for 1-2 sec?
Not double, just a light was strange and its looked like a double.
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Ninanina on December 18, 2009, 05:45:55 PM
http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)
(http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/85/l_82d05062a1a1428fb11f7da75aa2b580.jpg)

Hmm, I don't know. The shape of the face seems right, but the nose doesn't match...  :?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Wildy on December 18, 2009, 05:57:50 PM
Quote from: KeepTheFaith
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.

Double for one movement which was in the film for 1-2 sec?
Not double, just a light was strange and its looked like a double.


I can see Michael too but on the 1 and 2 pictures but not on the 3, how weird !!!  :|
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: azazel31 on December 18, 2009, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.




Im so sorry but...u must be blind.....if u thinkin that it was Michael
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: PATHOS on December 18, 2009, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.

Whoa! These pictures are not the same as the ones as I have been seeing. For one they are extra crisp and they look like the real Michael Jackson, even the one in red pants. Something is going on because I know I haven't been seeing the same person in these photos and this just confirmed it.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: LiberianGirl on December 18, 2009, 06:49:41 PM
Quote from: "Dangerous"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
Because it is Only Red shirt MJ in TII CD booklet..... I have always questioned that!!!
Seemed strange they would not include lots of different rehersal pics.. Smooth Crim is there too but that was filmed earlier at Culver....

The comparison of these 2 pics for me is Michael Kiss

That looks like a perfect match.

The only reason i can think for why they used doubles is because MJ wasn't well enough to perform, but that also means that This Is It was always supposed to be a movie, because it's not as though they could get away with using them at the O2.

Or when MJ died he hadn't showed up for many rehearsals but they still wanted to make ££ from his death so they filmed extra rehearsal footage with doubles to make a movie.

I thought the same thing and this scares me a lot. What if everything was about to earn more $$ ???  :cry:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 18, 2009, 08:40:51 PM
Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.


Double for one movement which was in the film for 1-2 sec?
Not double, just a light was strange and its looked like a double.
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)

Different lighting? I don't think so. Seriously guys, you have to admit this person looks nothing like Michael. I don't belive the double or twin or whatever crazy theory that has been going on since he "died", but I'm starting to think there may have been doubles in TII.

Mike has a very specific bone structure, the shape of the face does not match AT ALL as well as the ears, the mouth, the eyebrows and the nose..
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double-1.jpg?t=1261190285)

The problem is...if we're right about the doubles in TII..what is the purpose? Does it have anything to do with the hoax? We'll have to find out or wait for Michael  :D
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: kdkennedy74 on December 18, 2009, 09:35:47 PM
The sunglasses don't match either. Michael's are more triangular in lens shapen whereas the double's are more square.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: AnnieIsNotOK on December 18, 2009, 09:48:53 PM
This is so confusing...I change my mind from post to post :shock:  :lol:  :lol: ...I can't wait for de TII dvd to come out so I can scrutinize it  :geek: ...but to have use a body double,what does it have to do with the hoax  :?  :?:  :?:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Datroot on December 19, 2009, 03:36:34 AM
Quote from: "AnnieIsNotOK"
This is so confusing...I change my mind from post to post :shock:  :lol:  :lol: ...I can't wait for de TII dvd to come out so I can scrutinize it  :geek: ...but to have use a body double,what does it have to do with the hoax  :?  :?:  :?:

If they used a double(s) in TII , it could have been because MJ had already left or gone into hiding so they had no choice but to use other people so they could complete the film.  That's my take on it anyway.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 19, 2009, 04:12:10 AM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.


Double for one movement which was in the film for 1-2 sec?
Not double, just a light was strange and its looked like a double.
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)

Different lighting? I don't think so. Seriously guys, you have to admit this person looks nothing like Michael. I don't belive the double or twin or whatever crazy theory that has been going on since he "died", but I'm starting to think there may have been doubles in TII.

Mike has a very specific bone structure, the shape of the face does not match AT ALL as well as the ears, the mouth, the eyebrows and the nose..
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double-1.jpg?t=1261190285)

The problem is...if we're right about the doubles in TII..what is the purpose? Does it have anything to do with the hoax? We'll have to find out or wait for Michael  :D

Wait wait wait.. so you think at the left picture is Michael and the right is a double?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 19, 2009, 04:21:42 AM
omg, double, but where ???
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/19/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h30m45s100.png)
I think this is the only picture in TII which looks like a double (but it is not, imo).

After this movement, from another camera.
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
 So my question: do you think this is a double too?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 19, 2009, 04:25:06 AM
Quote from: "AnnieIsNotOK"
This is so confusing...I change my mind from post to post :shock:  :lol:  :lol: ...I can't wait for de TII dvd to come out so I can scrutinize it  :geek: ...but to have use a body double,what does it have to do with the hoax  :?  :?:  :?:

The dvd came out already, pirate version, but dvd rip, it contains the full credits.
And really good quality. After i watch it i think there were no doubles!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 20, 2009, 11:15:48 AM
I need the dvd im convinced about doubles, even if they were only there for a split second.. Im sure they are there and im sure the dvd will prove this...
Im now going with the theory that  YES there are doubles but instead of looking for them instead trying to figure out WHY they are there... For what reason? And was it for hoax or money???
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MissG on December 20, 2009, 11:24:50 AM
Randy Jackson said that he did not go to TII premiere since he was not going to watch a movie his brother did not agreed upon, whatever that meant  :?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: SPAKKLE29FUL on December 20, 2009, 11:28:08 AM
Quote from: "Gema"
Randy Jackson said that he did not go to TII premiere since he was not going to watch a movie his brother did not agreed upon, whatever that meant  :?
:? exactly what did he mean :roll:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: loveumj88 on December 20, 2009, 12:17:04 PM
Quote from: "PATHOS"
Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
These pictures are from the same clip but different angles.

(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/vlcsnap-2009-12-18-22h29m09s79_1.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelenjj.png)
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/18/Nvtelen.png)

In these pictures i see Michael.

Whoa! These pictures are not the same as the ones as I have been seeing. For one they are extra crisp and they look like the real Michael Jackson, even the one in red pants. Something is going on because I know I haven't been seeing the same person in these photos and this just confirmed it.

Agree, this is so Michael for me, now its getting more, and more, and more confusing.. :?
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Eva R on December 20, 2009, 12:21:48 PM
yep, all Mike to me  ;)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: mjgirl86 on December 20, 2009, 12:32:55 PM
Definitely all Mike. No question about it.

*waves* hi Eva!  :P
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: lisap27 on December 20, 2009, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: "Eva R"
yep, all Mike to me  ;)

i think so too.. always have!! we must be the odd one's out..  :lol:  :) :geek:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: SPAKKLE29FUL on December 20, 2009, 01:25:06 PM
HAVE YOU MADE UP YOUR MINDS YET :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJJ1982 on December 20, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
Quote from: "Eva R"
yep, all Mike to me  ;)

Agree! I believe it's our Michael all the time.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: AgentBJ on December 20, 2009, 02:14:57 PM
Maybe this one but the one with the orange pants and the fedora was not MJ...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: KeepTheFaith on December 20, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
I think there is just Michael, the different clothes, the sunglasses, lights, and angles, changing it a little, but everyones face look a bit different in strong light.

Here is a picture from TII: Michael without sunglasses with different hair.
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/20/vlcsnap-2009-12-20-21h20m35s91.png)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Ninanina on December 20, 2009, 02:34:42 PM
@Gema
Do you have a link for what Randy said about TII?

Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
I think there is just Michael, the different clothes, the sunglasses, lights, and angles, changing it a little, but everyones face look a bit different in strong light.

Here is a picture from TII: Michael without sunglasses with different hair.
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/20/vlcsnap-2009-12-20-21h20m35s91.png)

This pic seems to be from the auditions.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: LiberianGirl on December 20, 2009, 04:23:18 PM
Guys I was so sure that 02 London wans't Michael himself but after I watched a video I became sure that he was Michael himself. And I always thought that there were body doubles in TII but now I'm NOT so sure about it. I think they were all Michael himself. We don't even look the same in every picture and we can not expect him to look the same everytime :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MissG on December 20, 2009, 04:33:05 PM
@Ninanina

http://twitter.com/randyjackson8 (http://twitter.com/randyjackson8)

I can't support a film my brother wouldn't approve of, so I didn't attend the screening. Also, because I know how it ends...    3:29 PM Oct 28th   from web
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: MJJ1982 on December 20, 2009, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: "KeepTheFaith"
I think there is just Michael, the different clothes, the sunglasses, lights, and angles, changing it a little, but everyones face look a bit different in strong light.

Here is a picture from TII: Michael without sunglasses with different hair.
(http://noob.hu/2009/12/20/vlcsnap-2009-12-20-21h20m35s91.png)

Offtopic, but he's so cute here :P
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 20, 2009, 05:29:37 PM
New TII blu ray trailer  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk)

NOW THESE ARE FROM THAT TRAILER!!!!!!! AND YOU MAY NEED TO ZOOM BUT SORRY NOT MICHAEL JACKSON
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: TheLLMJ on December 20, 2009, 05:53:44 PM
But on the left picture the glasses look different. They look much more smaller and not so rounded  :?  
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double-1.jpg?t=1261190285)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: ILuvUMoreMJ on December 20, 2009, 08:01:45 PM
I believe in stand-ins and stuntmen, but not doubles...it's all MJ for me.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 21, 2009, 11:34:10 AM
Quote from: "ILuvUMoreMJ"
I believe in stand-ins and stuntmen, but not doubles...it's all MJ for me.  :mrgreen:

Yeah, probably :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: CoffeBean on December 21, 2009, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
New TII blu ray trailer  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk)

NOW THESE ARE FROM THAT TRAILER!!!!!!! AND YOU MAY NEED TO ZOOM BUT SORRY NOT MICHAEL JACKSON
Sorry, but I posted the SAME pictures, this pictures was mede by me. Not funny... :x
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: q0txciityl0ve on December 21, 2009, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
New TII blu ray trailer  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk)

NOW THESE ARE FROM THAT TRAILER!!!!!!! AND YOU MAY NEED TO ZOOM BUT SORRY NOT MICHAEL JACKSON

again, the bottom picture is his stuntman. Michael did not do all of those stunts in Smooth Criminal.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Loveneverfeltsogood on December 21, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
New TII blu ray trailer  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk)

NOW THESE ARE FROM THAT TRAILER!!!!!!! AND YOU MAY NEED TO ZOOM BUT SORRY NOT MICHAEL JACKSON
Are you sure that is not Michael the one on the first picture? The second one is definitely not him, but the first one...by the way the trailer of the blue ray is amazing.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Hotgirl1 on December 21, 2009, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: "knowhesalive"
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

 

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

This is NOT Michael... Look at the eyebrows, nose, mouth and face...

Oh....holly crap! You are certainly correct my friend and I think I may know who this double is....here, I'm gonna do a side by side to see if you guys see the same things that I do. ;)

Introducing Ladies and Gentlemen......Mike Kiss
Now take a look at the profile, the length and shape of forehead and the narrowness of the chin and shape of the nose, and last but not least pay particularly close attention to the size and shape of the "LIPS".  
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/mjfannn/l_88db7d735fd342508a65d4055b361ad7.jpg)  
TII Guy!
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)

Kiss again:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/mjfannn/l_4f49fad9eb2c4685beada1155576e1-1.jpg)
 [b]TII Guy![/b]
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: teensy on December 21, 2009, 06:10:57 PM
Wow.  :shock:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Ninanina on December 21, 2009, 06:14:01 PM
Quote from: "Hotgirl1"
Quote from: "knowhesalive"
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

 

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

This is NOT Michael... Look at the eyebrows, nose, mouth and face...

Oh....holly crap! You are certainly correct my friend and I think I may know who this double is....here, I'm gonna do a side by side to see if you guys see the same things that I do. ;)

Introducing Ladies and Gentlemen......Mike Kiss
Now take a look at the profile, the length and shape of forehead and the narrowness of the chin and shape of the nose, and last but not least pay particularly close attention to the size and shape of the "LIPS".  
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/mjfannn/l_88db7d735fd342508a65d4055b361ad7.jpg)  
TII Guy!
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)

Kiss again:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/mjfannn/l_4f49fad9eb2c4685beada1155576e1-1.jpg)
 [b]TII Guy![/b]
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)

Two thirds of the thread are about Michael Kiss ;-)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Guest on December 21, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
I know who that this  lmao  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: LiberianGirl on December 21, 2009, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: "Loveneverfeltsogood"
Quote from: "Leah-Kim"
New TII blu ray trailer  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raeE5RT_gk)

NOW THESE ARE FROM THAT TRAILER!!!!!!! AND YOU MAY NEED TO ZOOM BUT SORRY NOT MICHAEL JACKSON
Are you sure that is not Michael the one on the first picture? The second one is definitely not him, but the first one...by the way the trailer of the blue ray is amazing.

He seems taller than Michael, doesn't he? He's so slim as well.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Leah-Kim on December 22, 2009, 05:38:41 PM
So are we all agreed its Michael Kiss then?? :lol:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: wandulka on December 22, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
Yup, probably..and you guys are right, he could've worked as a stand-in, not as a double...  :)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Guest on August 04, 2010, 03:33:49 PM
Quote from: "mjboogie"
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!

Sorry, but it's definitely Mike in the orange pants.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: airieslady on August 04, 2010, 03:42:50 PM
Quote from: "callofthewild"
Quote from: "mjboogie"
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!

Sorry, but it's definitely Mike in the orange pants.


Would you have some proof of this?  Where you there?  hmmm!
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Guest on August 04, 2010, 04:52:44 PM
Quote from: "airieslady"
Quote from: "callofthewild"
Quote from: "mjboogie"
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!

Sorry, but it's definitely Mike in the orange pants.


Would you have some proof of this?  Where you there?  hmmm!

You can choose to believe it's him, or not. It's your prerogative. I simply believe it because I'm in a position to know it to be the truth.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: ~Souza~ on August 04, 2010, 05:14:04 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.

Reconstruct what? I think he looked fine back in 2005, I don't see what should be reconstructed, but maybe that's just me... :?

(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forumpics/2.jpg)

(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forumpics/mj.jpg)
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: mjsgirl89 on August 04, 2010, 05:21:17 PM
OMG OMG OMG...TII guy in these pics look JUST LIKE MIKE KISS!!!!! i still wasn't sure anout the dounle theory, but OMG...this really convinced me
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Empathy on August 04, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"
Sorry, if it's been posted before..
Till now I was convinced there were no doubles  in TII..I'm not that convinced now..I've seen TII about 5 times, but I haven't seen anyone else besides Michael in the movie..so, I went trough some photos and found this one..Do you guys think it's possible that this guy worked as a stand-in and not as a "double?" It's deff not Michael.

http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double.jpg?t=1260908439)(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/wendus92/double2.jpg?t=1260909076)


I believe this is Christopher Gaspar.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: voiceforthesilent on August 04, 2010, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: "callofthewild"
Quote from: "airieslady"
Quote from: "callofthewild"
Quote from: "mjboogie"
OMG! No wonder I knew it! Because when I was watching the movie (and I have saw it 3 times) there was something off with the MJ in Orange Pants. It just did not look like MJ! That is not MJ. And now more than ever it is just very very obvious that MJ is alive! I really don't believe MJ died a long time ago like some people are claiming. I want to believe that they did use doubles in this movie because maybe MJ was really attending to other things? I wish there was a way we could find out exactly when the rehearsels were done? Because now that we have discovered doubles (just as Joe Jackson stated!) makes me wonder exactly when the rehearsels were done! Everything is off also......or was MJ sick and sometimes could not attend? WHen "They don't really care about us was performed" it was really MJ. Also.... when Smooth Criminal was performed (it was a stunt man that jumped out of the window, (now that one was real obvious! ;) ) Guys..... I really really really believe that we should research why doubles were used! The reasons would definitley give us more insight into the hoax. And you all were right some of those dance moves (if you are a longtime MJ fan) just wasn't our MJ! Just wasn't!

Sorry, but it's definitely Mike in the orange pants.


Would you have some proof of this?  Where you there?  hmmm!

You can choose to believe it's him, or not. It's your prerogative. I simply believe it because I'm in a position to know it to be the truth.

Ok - I believe. And I owe Michael a huge apology for not thinking it was him... :oops:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: mykidsmum on August 04, 2010, 09:02:29 PM
Quote from: "Miss.Peppers"
In an interview with TMZ, Dr Klein said that was his jacket that MJ was wearing that day with the orange trousers
not that coat, it's the big "winter" coat he's wearing...I don't think that shiny coat would fit Kleins little finger....LOL
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Guest on August 04, 2010, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: "mykidsmum"
Quote from: "Miss.Peppers"
In an interview with TMZ, Dr Klein said that was his jacket that MJ was wearing that day with the orange trousers
not that coat, it's the big "winter" coat he's wearing...I don't think that shiny coat would fit Kleins little finger....LOL

That flight jacket wouldn't fit Klein either. He's as big as his mouth is.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Empathy on August 04, 2010, 09:19:16 PM
Just looked at the pics of Michael Kiss - have to agree thats a good likeness and I have never felt that 'orange pants' was Michael, actually, the only Michael I felt that was in TII for definate was the person in the grey suit.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Sangre on August 05, 2010, 02:53:21 AM
It doesn't look like Michael, but I don't understand why would they use doubles in TII if MJ wanted to make a movie? It makes me think he might be gone and they didn't get enough footage (opposite to what KO claimed o.O) and had to think of something really fast.

Or if they did plan to use doubles, because 50 concerts would have been too much (I don't remember where I read it, but it was said that Michael would perform only a few songs and then get some rest while impersonators sing and dance etc), but that makes me think TII shows were actually about to take place. But that's impossible if MJ had planned a hoax awhile ago, but that hoax couldn't have been a rush decision.

Gah, I don't know...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Datroot on August 05, 2010, 03:09:55 AM
MJ may have had to 'leave' earlier than planned so they had to use a 'stand-in' or 'double' (whatever you want to call it) to complete the film.  Just my humble O.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Kirsche on August 11, 2010, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: "larab"
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.


oh he did? In the movie?? never noticed that? Do you think that's the reason why he looked so different?  Because he looks very strange in that pictures, like it is not him...
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Glinda on August 11, 2010, 03:50:43 PM
Michael Jackson: (Discussing a problem with his ear piece) It's like someone's shoving their fist in my ear!

Kenny: You have the earpiece from the other..eh..you know.. :oops:

 :mrgreen:  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: nefari on August 11, 2010, 05:07:59 PM
There were certain parts of TII where I was like ok why are we seeing no moonwalks. I think I know why! Because the double or whoever that was standing in for Mike could NOT do a moonwalk. :lol:
And flubbing it up would have been a dead give away.
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: lacta89 on August 12, 2010, 06:55:46 AM
This is certainly not Michael! I have seen TII many times and there are some parts in which MJ looks...odd! I'm open to every theory about Mike, so...this might be a double! Joe Jackson also mentioned that only doubles were used for the movie.But who knows if that guys words are to be trusted? :roll:
Title: Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
Post by: Glinda on August 12, 2010, 07:57:35 AM
Quote from: "lacta89"
This is certainly not Michael! I have seen TII many times and there are some parts in which MJ looks...odd! I'm open to every theory about Mike, so...this might be a double! Joe Jackson also mentioned that only doubles were used for the movie.But who knows if that guys words are to be trusted? :roll:

Joe Jackson insists “This is It” is mostly body doubles and “the media is going to tear this movie apart.”

from tmz.
Joe knows the diffrence :mrgreen:

Would be very bad if he doesnt know.
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal