0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

teensy

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.  :?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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...
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
dd64300@hotmail.com


[size=110]"Lie run sprints, but the truth runs marathons"[/size]

*

zyla

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
your love is magical ...

I see the clues
I know what\'s true.

"the troot will prevail",
and I can\'t wait. (]

*

Zen

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

miss j

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
December 15, 2009, 09:23:15 PM
Quote from: "wandulka"

Zoomed in & lightened:

who is that???
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

You ain\'t heavy, you\'re my brother.

*

Chance

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
December 15, 2009, 09:29:22 PM
Do you think the eyebrows look similiar to this picture?

Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
The day I will stop loving you, is the day when I close my eyes forever!


*

mjboogie

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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!
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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?  :?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am obsessed with a man I have never met, yet, I feel like I have known him forever.

*

nlb

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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]
Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 10:20:03 PM by nlb
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

miss j

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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..
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

You ain\'t heavy, you\'re my brother.

*

Lorrie

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

wilds

Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
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.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Zoomed in & lightened:

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.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


Re: This is DEFINITELY not Mike.
December 16, 2009, 01:26:05 AM
Quote from: "Chance"
Do you think the eyebrows look similiar to this picture?


Who is that funny guy? :D
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Put my broken heart together again...

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
1904 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 03:17:56 AM
by gracesong
115 Replies
10340 Views
Last post February 06, 2010, 03:13:39 PM
by paula-c
67 Replies
6023 Views
Last post February 22, 2010, 03:08:57 PM
by Eva R
28 Replies
2741 Views
Last post March 11, 2010, 11:13:53 AM
by Kirsche
mike's shameful employees

Started by the arabian nights Others

8 Replies
1917 Views
Last post April 10, 2010, 03:57:34 PM
by the arabian nights

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal