0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Glad you're bringing this up. I remember reading that and also puzzling over it too. In my mind I guess I was thinking that BACK was cryptic by pretending to be an insider and an outsider, not too clearly so people wouldn't suspect he was Michael. Like elements of this hoax with TIAI, TS, and TMZ many statements seem to contradict each other creating confusion. That's how I took it. BACK couldn't let certain elements out of the bag too soon. JMO.
So "BACK" is this person who joined the MJJC forum in April 2005 and made some very interesting posts, many of them strongly defending Katherine Jackson, which overall make many of us believe that he's either MJ or else a real insider. Well, looking at some of his posts recently I realized that he doesn't seem to believe in the hoax... How can we explain this? If MJ is alive, shouldn't "BACK" know this? I don't know how to attach BACK's posts in a way that you can view them, so I'll just use the links from Bec's blog (haha, using Bec's blog again): On 25-10-2009 BACK wrote: "Conrad Mur[derer] (the taker of life)" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login On 22-06-2010 BACK wrote, referring to Katherine: "After losing a Son nearly a year ago, you're reminded of just how fragile any element of life can be."You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login BACK is very no-nonsense in general, and I don't get the sense he was kidding when calling Murray a murderer... I'm puzzled. :?:
voiceforthesilent: There's no absolute proof that BACK is Michael either. It could be Janet or Randy, it could be Diana Ross or Evan Ross, it could be anyone familiar with the music biz and somewhat familiar with Michael... Whenever we believe that someone is an insider (MJ or not), we want proof that they are, NOT that they aren't. (If I say to you that I'm an insider, you'll ask for proof right?) And if BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"?
Okay, I'm just now getting aquainted with BACK. So I may not have enough information to have an opinion at all. But I just read one of the posts you included, and the part where he says Conrad Mur(derer) made me laugh instantly. Like, I felt like it was done intentionally to be funny. Sort of like a play on words. And "Taker of life" I read as if it were his "role" in a film. If BACK is MJ, then I think that might be appropriate for him to do. A bit insensitive? Maybe. But isn't faking your death a bit insensitive? Many think so. Mike's a prankster, remember?! I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.
foreverking: No one has yet offered a possible answer to my question: If BACK is Michael and is alive, why would he say that Katherine lost a son and Murray is a "taker of life"? I don't believe in blind faith, or in disregarding everything that doesn't fit the hoax idea or our ideas of who TS or BACK or other people & things are... I try to stay objective (as much as I can) and notice when something supports the hoax AND when something doesn't. I understand that Michael/BACK wouldn't necessarily say "Mike's alive" or "I believe in the hoax", but why make a post calling Murray a murderer? As I said, BACK didn't need to post at all, or to talk about Murray at all.
Quote from: "jacilovesmichael"Okay, I'm just now getting aquainted with BACK. So I may not have enough information to have an opinion at all. But I just read one of the posts you included, and the part where he says Conrad Mur(derer) made me laugh instantly. Like, I felt like it was done intentionally to be funny. Sort of like a play on words. And "Taker of life" I read as if it were his "role" in a film. If BACK is MJ, then I think that might be appropriate for him to do. A bit insensitive? Maybe. But isn't faking your death a bit insensitive? Many think so. Mike's a prankster, remember?! I do agree that it's important for someone to prove they are an insider, and not just prove that they aren't. But part of me feels like, if it really is MJ, then he might not feel the need to provide proof.Thanks for responding, Jaci. If you could see those posts as funny/humorous, that's OK... I really didn't. BACK is pretty dead serious in his posts, generally speaking... A death hoax is about joking that YOU (Mike in this case) are dead, which isn't insensitive - especially if your family and close friends are in the know. Referring to SOMEONE ELSE as a murderer is a different story - and Michael was always careful about the statements he made about others. VERY careful, if you look at his interviews, speeches, and even leaked phone calls to random friends. He refused to trash Eminem when given the chance, for instance.
Jaci, you said: "Well, MJ didn't need to go and fake his death and stir up all this mystery either..." Jaci, do you really think Michael did this as a game/play? And he "didn't need to"? Sorry, but I believe this is SERIOUS STUFF. Michael did not hoax his death (assuming he did), and put his 3 children through this, for no good reason... 1. MJ may actually have been forced into this - by circumstances we aren't aware of. 2. Even if MJ wasn't forced, he had a damn good reason for this.
