This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • 178 Replies
  • 10145 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wandulka

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 53
    • Show only replies by wandulka

This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:24:11 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://http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

Zoomed in & lightened:
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 03:31:44 PM by wandulka »

Offline Kirsche

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2082
    • Show only replies by Kirsche
    • http://www.myspace.com/chrischl

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:27:18 PM
He has totally different Eyebrows and his faces...hm

was that a scene where they've put a playback over it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
[
OKAY, EVERBODY! THAT\'S A WRAP!

Offline wandulka

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 53
    • Show only replies by wandulka

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:32:25 PM
I'm not sure which scene was that..but I'm sure he's not even close to being Michael.. :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Miss.Peppers

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 998
    • Show only replies by Miss.Peppers

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:38:42 PM
In an interview with TMZ, Dr Klein said that was his jacket that MJ was wearing that day with the orange trousers
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Always the Angel on My Shoulder

Offline larab

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 323
    • Show only replies by larab

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:41:42 PM
Klein was reconstructing Michael's face..sometimes he even wore band aids on his nose. I still think it is him.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline KeepTheFaith

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 172
    • Show only replies by KeepTheFaith

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:43:07 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
\'Cause this is thriller, thriller night

Offline llebreknit

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 116
    • Show only replies by llebreknit

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:48:11 PM
I am sure it is real MJ at TII all time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline AgentBJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 587
    • Show only replies by AgentBJ

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:50:24 PM
I don't believe Dr.Klein.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline knowhesalive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 287
    • Show only replies by knowhesalive
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MsDanishgirl

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:51:00 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://http://mjjgallery.free.fr/2009/thisisit/trailers/013.jpg

 

Zoomed in & lightened:

This is NOT Michael... Look at the eyebrows, nose, mouth and face...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


Peter Pan
“I wake up from dreams and go "Wow, put this down on paper." The whole thing is strange. You hear the words, everything is right there in front of your face . . .”

Offline Lou

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 169
    • Show only replies by Lou

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
Yes, he doesn't look like Michael. Maybe he's that Christopher guy mentioned on the following thread:
http://http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1391&p=21245#p21245
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline larab

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 323
    • Show only replies by larab

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 03:54:52 PM
Quote from: "AgentBJ"
I don't believe Dr.Klein.

you don't have to. Michael was in his office almost daily for weeks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline CoffeBean

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 134
    • Show only replies by CoffeBean

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
:o  :o  :o
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline LucyLocket

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 203
    • Show only replies by LucyLocket

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:09:11 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
http]

[size=85]Do all the good you can, By all the means you can, In all the ways you can, In all the places you can, At all the times you can, To all the people you can, As long as ever you can.
-John Wesley
 English religious leader (1703 - 1791)
[/size]

Offline Grazzia

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 224
    • Show only replies by Grazzia

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:10:55 PM
is not mike!!!!
OMG! :shock:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

topsecretgirl

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by topsecretgirl

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:14:59 PM
I think it's not Mike! This person looks very younger.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Happy Feet

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 320
    • Show only replies by Happy Feet

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:17:19 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline SPAKKLE29FUL

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1148
    • Show only replies by SPAKKLE29FUL

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:22:00 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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lucrecia

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 59
    • Show only replies by lucrecia

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:25:34 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline wandulka

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 53
    • Show only replies by wandulka

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:34:19 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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Happy Feet

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 320
    • Show only replies by Happy Feet

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:40:17 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline kdkennedy74

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 264
    • Show only replies by kdkennedy74

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:42:22 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!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


I close my eyes just to try and see you smile one more time
Its been so long now all I do is cry
Cant we find some love to take this away
Cause the pain gets stronger every day
Cant you see I dont wanna walk away

Offline Happy Feet

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 320
    • Show only replies by Happy Feet

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:46:34 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Freeze Frame

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 68
    • Show only replies by Freeze Frame

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:56:12 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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Leah-Kim

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 507
    • Show only replies by Leah-Kim

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 04:59:00 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Everyday creates your HIStory.........
Everypath you take your leaving your legacy.......

Offline Happy Feet

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 320
    • Show only replies by Happy Feet

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.

  • on: December 15, 2009, 05:09:13 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 :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
798 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 04:17:56 AM
by gracesong
115 Replies
3816 Views
Last post February 06, 2010, 04:13:39 PM
by paula-c
67 Replies
2060 Views
Last post February 22, 2010, 04:08:57 PM
by Eva R
14 Replies
1300 Views
Last post June 26, 2010, 02:09:55 AM
by NEFFERTEAREYA
28 Replies
885 Views
Last post March 11, 2010, 12:13:53 PM
by Kirsche